SAILING

HYDROFOILS

THE AMATEUR YACHT

RESEARCH

SOCIETY

(Founded June, 1955 to encourage Amateur and Individual Yacht Research)

Patron:
HIS
THE

R O Y A L HIGHNESS

PRINCE PHILIP, D U K E OF E D I N B U R G H ,
K.G.,

P.C.,

K . T . , G.B.E., F.R.S.

Presidents:
British: The Rt. H o n , L o r d Riverdale, D . L . , J.P.
New Zealand: R. L . Stewart
Vice-Presidents:
British:
American:
Austin Farrar, M.R.I.N.A.
Great Lakes: William R. Mehaffey
Beecher Moore
California: Joseph J. Szakacs
Sir Peregrine Henniker-Heaton, B t .
British
Committee:
Chairman: Sir Perry Henniker-Heaton, Bt.
Vice-Chairman: Andre Kanssen
{Hon. Sec), Bill Poole
Dennis Banham, W/Cdr. Jock Burrough, D . F . C , Michael Butterfield,
Tom Herbert, S. A . Coleman-Malden, Michael Ellison, Pat M o r w o o d , Eric
Thorne-Symmons, Gp/Cpt. M . D . Thunder, F.O.O.S.
National
Organisers:
American: W. D o r w i n Teague, 375 Sylvan Ave., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey 07632.
AustraUan: Ray Dooris, 29 Clarence St., Macquarie Fields, Sydney, N.S.W.
British: Michael Ellison, Hermitage, Newbury, Bucks.
Canadian: P. J. M c G r a t h , 43 Thornecliffe Park Drive, Apartment 706.
Toronto, 17, Ontario.
French: Pierre Gutelle, 3 Rue Jules Simon, 75 Paris (15).
New Zealand: T. L . Lane, 32 Michaels Ave., Auckland, S.E.6.
South African: Brian Lello, S.A. Yachting, 58 Burg St., Cape T o w n .
Sweden: Sveriges Catamaran Seglare, Mistelvagen 4, Lidingo.
Area Organisers:
Dennis Banham, Highlands, Blackstone, Redhill, Surrey.
A. T. Brooke, 75 Craiglockhart Rd., Edinburgh 11.
Fred Benyon-Tinker, 49 Pillar Gardens, Northfield Lane, Brixham, Devon.
M . Garnet, 7 Reynolds Walk, Horfield, Bristol.
John R. Novak. 23100 Vanowen St., Canoga Park, California.
Editorial
Michael Henderson, John Hogg.

Sub-Committee:

Editor and publisher:

John M o r w o o d , Woodacres, Hythe, Kent, England.
A l l A Y R S publications are copyright. Extracts may only be used by
permission o f the Editor and Contributor which will not ordinarily be refused
as long as proper acknowledgement is made

YoureevegiTipritli,-

New !deaI

For one simple, single subscription,

Practical Boat OwnerBritain's biggestselling boating magazinewill come through
your Tetter-box regularly every month in all
its sparkling colour and spanking freshness.
Every month Practical Boat Owner is filled
with a wealth of features and illustrations
on every important aspect of the yachting
and boating scenenew ideas, new boats,
new gear, new materials, new equipment,
repairing and overhauling, building,
maintenance, gadgets you can make, special
hints and tips, and much more for everyone
who goes afloat.
MAKE SURE OF THE LATEST I S S U E NOW! by sending a year's subscription
(3-2-0 for United Kingdom subscribers) to:
The Subscription Manager, Practical Boat
Owner, IPC Magazines Limited, Dept. S I G ,
Tower House, Southampton Street, London,
WC2E 9QX.
Subscription rates for overseas: U S A & C a n a d a : 1 0 0 0
dollars. Australia: 6 66 dollars. New Zealand: 6 66 dollars.
Holland: 27 09 guilders. France: 41 29 francs. Sweden:
38 47 krona. Germany: 26-97 marks.
This month and every month

read

Boat Owner
Britain's

biggest-selling

boating
1

magazine

LEARN BOAT DESIGN

NEW
MODERN
correspondence
course. 20 lessons, seven textbooks,
12 sets of plans to study, plastic
experiment kit, drawing tool discounts,
certificate given at end. Tank testing,
annual seminar, internship, plans sales
help, post-graduate special program,
monthly newsletter and more.
Also: Special extra 4-lesson series on
multihulls!
This new course covers it all: first line to writing the
advertising. Sail, power, cruising, racing, modern and
character design methods. Includes w o o d , metal, fiberglass & ferrocement.
Special reduced price on " a u d i t " method of study where
you take no tests and get no certificate. Designed for
the racing skipper or other serious boating enthusiasts
(and for salesmen, brokers and manufacturers) w h o just
want to learn more about their hobby or business.
EASY PAYMENT PLANS: Pay as you learn, by the month
or by the lesson. Total cost Si 90 to S325 depending on
method of payment and course.
Write f o r free 12-page illustrated booklet.
OUR NEWJUST PUBLISHEDBOOK (shown above)
"Understanding Boat Design", 68 big 8J x 11 pages,
24,000 words, 26 pages of illustrations, 10 pages of study
plans. POST PAID S3.95.

YACHT DESIGN INSTITUTE

Edward S. Brewer, NADirector
BROOKLYN, MAINE, USA 04616

CONTENTS
5
6
8

Page

Editorial
TheAYRS
Introduction

61
61
61
62
62
62
62
63
64

CHAPTER I
10 The Nature of Hydrofoils
11 The Traditional Hydrofoils
13 Asymmetrical Hydrofoils
14 Inverted T StabilisersMorwood
17 The All Hydrofoil Sailing Craft
2 0 Miscellaneous Uses for Hydrofoils

66

C H A P T E R VI
69
FUNDonald Robertson
70
Trimaran Conversion UnitAllen
71
CEREBUSWilliam H. Baur
73
AVOCETProf. Sir Martin Ryle
77
PARANGPeter Cotterill
80
An Unusual DesignA. R. Gibbons
81
A Cruising Hydrofoil Trimaran
Arthur Piver
82
A Wingsail DesignWilliam Baur

CHAPTER II
2 4 The Baker Hydrofoil Craft
2 6 Prof. Locke's Sailing Hydrofoils
2 8 Catifoil DesignDumpleton
30 A Hydrofoil Design in 1 9 5 6
Morwood
32

35
37
38

ENDEAVOUR'S

Aspect Ratio
Air Entry
Methods of Prevention
Easy Sea Motion
Incidence Control
Dihedral
Foil Area
Parallel Foils
A Hydrofoil Sailing Craft
Morwood
Rock and Roll BoatsJulian Allen

HydrofoilsPearce

Hydrofoil ExperimentsRobertson
LetterColes
HydrofoilsBob Harris

C H A P T E R VII
8 5 G;Z/V10William C. Prior
87 The Prior Hydrofoil Craft No. 2
8 8 FLYING
W/NGErick J. Manners
91 The Aspect Ratio
9 2 Hydrofoil SystemsMorwood
95 Hydrofoils for a Catamaran
Morwood

CHAPTER III
40 JEHU 1957John Morwood
4 2 Hydrofoil StabilisersMorwood
43 A Wave Power DevicePiver
4 4 PARANGMorwood
CHAPTER IV
47 Hydrofoil CraftBob Harris
4 8 Comte de Lambert
4 8 Forlanini
4 8 Crocco
4 8 Wright Brothers
4 9 Richardson
4 9 Guidoni
5 0 Alexander Graham Bell
5 0 Principles of DesignHeight
Control
51 Air Entrainment
51 Sweepback
5 2 Tietjens
5 2 Von Schertel
53 Grunberg
53 The Hook "Hydrofin"
5 5 The Baker Craft
56 Gilruth
57 The Carl Hydrofoils
58 Gibbs and Cox
59 Conclusions

C H A P T E R VIII
9 8 Water BicyclesMorwood
9 9 Submerged Buoyancy
9 9 Marine Drives
100 Hotchkiss (MPELLOR
101 The Voith-Schneider propellor
101 AVOCETletter, Martin Ryle
102 The Hook Hydrofoil
103 A Foil Crab DesignGarnett
106 Automatic Incidence C o n t r o l
Trasenter
C H A P T E R IX
108 The Dibb Hydrofoil Trimaran
110 RYSA-John Morwood
112 Micronesian HydrofoilMorwood
115 TR/MAlbert J. Felice
I 17 Downwind Yacht Design
Costagliola
CHAPTER X
121 Opinions about Hydrofoil
Edmond Bruce
123 A Single Outrigger (Bruce Foil)
Bruce

CHAPTER V
60 The Design of Hydrofoils
Morwood
6 0 The Section
60 The Upper Surface
6 0 The Lower Surface
6 0 The Entry
61 Thickness
61 The Plan Form

CHAPTER XI
129 Hydrofoil Stabi'i-,c-;Morwood
131 LetterAndrew Norton

Page

132
135
136
137

CHAPTER XII
139
Don Nigg's EXOCOETUS,
144
147
149
151
152
153
156

Page

207
213

LetterBill Holroyd
LetterHelge Ingeberg
Hydrofoil StabilisersBruce Clark
G. F. H. Singleton's FO/LER model

/CARUSJames Grogono
MANT/SDavid and Peter G.
Chinery

C H A P T E R XVIII
226
A Flying Hydrofoil Craft Joe Hood
230
SUNBIRD
/ i C h r i s Rowe
231 A Foil Stabilised HornetBren Ives
and John Potts
234
Learning to Sail a Hydrofoil
Cockburn
238
A Flying Hydrofoil Catamaran
Philip Hansford

Flying
hydrofoil

TR/PLE SECPaul Ashford

W/LL/WAWDave Keiper
A Hydrofoil CraftR. R. A. Bratt
A Hydrofoil DesignMorwood
WILUWAWDave Keiper
Hydrofoils for a Racing C a t
Williams
Hydrofoil Stabilised CraftFeldman

CHAPTER XIX
241 WILLIWAW,

C H A P T E R XIII
159
TRIPLE SEC with low A.R.Ashford
161 Low A.R. Bruce Foil Cruiser
Perkins
165 A Foil TrimaranHenry Nason
170 A Bruce FoilO. Holtman
172 Hydrofoil StabilizersDearling

Flying and Cruising

Keiper

CHAPTER X X
250
" T h e Forty-Knot Sailboat"
Bernard Smith
252
Foil Model Experiments
S. Wayne Wells
254
Dynamic Incidence Control
W. Morton
256
The Russian Hydrofoils
John Morwood

CHAPTER XIV
175
Don Nigg's FLYER, Mark II
180 A Racing Bruce FoilDavid Buirski

CHAPTER X X I
258
COQUI,
Hydrofoil StabilisedMorss
262
Bruce Clark Stabilisers on 18 foot
Canoe
265
Hydrofoils on a Cat H u l l Peter Westerberg

CHAPTER XV
182 Centreboard DesignMorwood
185 Hydrofoil Tank TestsEdmond
Bruce
189
Low A.R. Bruce f o i l George Bagnell

C H A P T E R XXII
268
" T h e Poller"Gerald Holtom
275
Automatic Incidence Control
Norman Riggs

CHAPTER XVI
192 W/LL/WAWFlying Hydrofoil
Keiper
195
Hydrofoil Plan Form Tests
Feldman
197 SULURodney Garrett
204
The SquidJohn Morwood

C H A P T E R XXIII
280
The Overall Conclusions
Morwood
280
Hydrofoils on a C Class C a t Berkeley
281 To Hawaii in W/LL/WAWKeiper
282
Epilogue DesignDavid Chinery
284
The CurraghJohn Morwood

CHAPTER XVII
206
AYRS Sailing Hydrofoil Meeting

EDITORIAL

by John Morwood

[
!
'

;
;

;
I

^
j

October, 1970

In 1955, when the A Y R S was formed, the members were given a challenge.
They were t o l d that people had sailed their boats off the water, being lifted by
underwater "wings," called "hydrofoils." We showed them photographs o f
the Baker hydrofoils " f l y i n g . " We also told them that it was possible to
stabilise a single, narrow hull with hydrofoils and again showed photographs.
This book shows how our ingenious members t o o k up this challenge.
Year
after year, members tried way after way o f getting their boats to fly or, where
stabilisers were wanted, we had examples of non-heeling sailing craft. Slowly,
the design principles were worked out and the construction improved until
we now have the interesting craft shown in our closing pages.
A t this moment in time, we can hardly say that the hydrofoil boats which
our members have produced have shown any vast improvement in speed over
more conventional boats. The racing catamaran, for example, at present
seems to be faster without hydrofoils than with them, even though flying.
However, time will undoubtedly show still more improvement in hydrofoils
in speed and, as stabilisers.
Reading over the material in this book, one is amazed by the collective
inventiveness of our members.
They will try anything and usually make it
work somehow. We have every k i n d o f inventor from the slap-happy type
(such as the Editor) to the careful one who works out the principals and
theory in detail, tanks tests his idea, makes his boat with loving care and sails
itand all Amateurs.
This book is a tribute to our members, showing them at their best in producing sailing boats which will give great pleasure to yachtsmen in the years
to come.

AYRS sailing h y d r o f o i l g r o u p
By the time of this publication, this Group, within the A Y R S , will have had
its first meeting, but it is hoped that any further members who may be interested
will make contact. The purpose o f the Group is to exchange knowledge on
all aspects of the subject, to plan and hold at least one foil-sailing meeting
each year, and possibly to combine in some of the more ambitious foilsailing developments.
Could anyone in any country who is interested,
contact James Grogono for information at 38, New Road, London, E . l .
"Sailing on h y d r o f o i l s "
Early next year Kalerghi Publications are bringing out a hard-back foilsailing volume with a wide coverage of the whole subject. The main contributors are D r . A l a n Alexander (on theory), D o n Nigg (foil-sailing development in the U S A ) and James Grogono (current problems and applications).
Many of the best foil-sailing photographs have been assembled for this
volume, and the Editor (James Grogono, 38, New Road, London, E . l )
would be interested to hear from any potential contributor or foil sailor who
has material for consideration, in particular any photographs of so far 'unknown' foil-boats.
5

The A m a t e u r Yacht Research Society

Some people who buy this book will not previously have heard o f the A Y R S
so it is worthwhile saying something about us.
We are a Society of people who either individually or in groups of two or
three, try experiments with boats or make studies o f yachting performance.
We do it for our own pleasure and satisfaction.
It is a W o r l d Wide organisation w i t h members in nearly every country.
I f therefore, anyone makes an experiment anywhere in the W o r l d , whether
he is a member or not, we hear about it and publish an account in our quarterly
magazine. The next thing we hear is of someone else, most often in a completely different country making an improvement.
Our book "Self-Steering" is another example of our members" work, similar
to this one. Since 1956, we have had members making special studies o f how
best to make a yacht steer herself on a fixed course to the apparent wind and,
in 1967 we gathered everything which we had published into a book which
we brought up to date in 1970, adding the new gears which our previous work
had "triggered off."
The other aspects of yachting in which we are interested are as follows:
1. Methods of recording completely a yachts" sailing performance on a
"polar curve graph sheet."" We have produced a blank sheet which simply
invites people to take "the sailing figures"" of their yacht and put them on it.
I f yachtsmen will take to this idea, we will have a method o f comparing one
yacht with another which is far more accurate than racing, which is more a
trial of the skill of the crew than of the potentiality of the yacht.
2. We have
ciently to drive
the rig used on
see the light of

conjectured an immense number o f ways to set canvas effia boat. The only way so far which has proved successful is
a " w i n g mast" in the C Class catamarans but other rigs may
day in the course o f time.

3. We have studied catamarans, from those of Nat Herreshoft" in the 19th

Century right up to modern times, working out the principles of design.
4. We "Pioneered" the trimaran, suggesting that it was the logical development from the catamaran.
5. We have studied yachting accidents in single hulls aud multihulls, yacht
electrics and ventilation and a host of minor conveniences and efficiencies for
all yachtsmen.
6. We have studied "Ocean Cruising" as best we can, giving the seamanship of the great sailors in yachts from Slocum to the moderns in the Singlehanded and two-man races.
The list of the publications we have produced will be found at the end
of this book and many can be bought from us still. Our present policy is to
assemble books from our members" writings, rather than to keep all the past
publications in print.
6

To us, the picture which emerges from our publications and books is of a
large group of highly intelligent inventors, innovators and researchers who
get far more out of sailing than simple fresh air. Their imprint upon sailing
will last for centuries.
I f you are not now a member of the A Y R S , you should j o i n us now and,
though you yourself may have nothing at first to contribute, your support for
those who are doing research will be of immense value to them in encouraging
them to continue. F r o m the patent files o f all countries, one can find examples
of yachting devices of value which have never appeared on the yachting scene.
The inventor has become discouraged by the lack o f comprehension o f his
fellow yachtsmen and allowed his idea to lapse. A n example o f this is an
excellent idea for hydrofoil stabilisers in boxes sloped at 45 degrees at the
ends of a cross beam from the US patent files of 1921.

SAILING

HYDROFOILS

Introduction
The A Y R S has been studying hydrofoils in all their applications for some
15 years. This book is an account of these studies. We have here, however,
made a selection of the material to avoid repetition, while not being afraid to
include some applications which w i l l never be used as shown but have an
application in some other direction which has not yet been developed. A n
example of this is the use o f vertical sculling hydrofoils. These are not
likely ever to be used in seriousness but a modernised version o f the Chinese
sculling oar would have definite value.
The u l t i m a t e objectives
A t the moment, we are on the very verge of seeing some remarkable hydrofoil
craft which fall into two classes, namely (1) the Flying hydrofoil craft where the
whole boat lifts off the water, leaving only three foils to sustain it and (2) the
Hydrofoil Stabilised craft, where a long lean boat is stabilised against the
capsizing moment of the wind by a hydrofoil placed to leeward.
The fully flying hydrofoil sailing boat may, or may not, achieve speeds of
40 knots. Due to the limitations of hydrofoils in " c a v i t a t i o n , " ultimate
speeds o f more than 45 knots are very unlikely indeed. Some development is
needed, however, before such a craft is seaworthy.
The hydrofoil-stabilised sailing boat, on the other hand, i f some 50 feet long
could be ordered tomorrow. I f built lightly enough such as in PVC foam and
fibreglass sandwich, it will have a better " l i f t to resistance r a t i o " than the
fully flying type up to speeds o f 30 knots. It might well do 40 knots and be a
fully seaworthy craft capable o f righting herself from the upside down position.
The m e t h o d of presentation
Hydrofoils show the A Y R S method of producingdevelopment most excellently.
A n idea is produced in one country. The inventor and the invention are more
or less scorned there but the A Y R S publishes it. Suddenly, in some far remote
part of the world, the idea turns up again, better made or more intimately
studied. Then, it is tried in even more widely varying places, all the time
getting more sophisticated (possibly even getting simpler).
We therefore feel that the best method of presentation is to follow the trains
of thought as shown by publication after publication which we have brought
out.
It is indeed a fascinating process which assures us that we have a method
which can be as fruitful of results as that of governments who will think
nothing of pouring millions of the taxpayers money into schemes often to
produce very modest results. Our method, though perhaps slower, produces
results which we are happy to show in this book. The final fully flying
hydrofoil configuration may yet be to come but, i f enough people read this
book, it will come very soon.
Cyclical i n v e n t i o n
The A Y R S studies have not, of course, been confined to hydrofoils. We have
studied catamarans and trimarans at the same time, acquiring some little
odium in the process. This triple study is, in fact, a unity as it is simply the
quest to get r i d o f the ballast o f the conventional yacht. Catamarans and
8

trimarans have done remarkable voyages, several having sailed around the
world, e.g. David Lewis in his catamaran REHU MO ANA and Nigel Tetley
in his trimaran VICTRESS
(a non-stop voyage). But both catamarans and
trimarans have capsized in the hands o f less skillful sailors. Neither is really
the family man's boat, except to certain designs.
The process we have been watching since 1955 is composed o f three parts:
1 Spreading the buoyancy of the single hulled boat into two separate hulls,
making a catamaran.
2 Spreading the buoyancy into three hulls, making a trimaran.
3 "Degeneration" o f the floats of a trimaran into hydrofoil stabilisers.
The end of this process is a return to a single hull with the ballast replaced by
hydrofoils. A cycle o f development has been completed.
Both models and full sized hydrofoil stabilised craft have been made and
shown to work, giving great speeds and full stability. The most amazing o f
all that we have seen is the little model made by Gerald H o l t o m sailing in a
scale wind of 60 miles per hour. Time after time, the strength of the wind
overpowered the foils and the model capsized and the mast and sail went into
the water. But, such are the dynamics o f the matter that the mast and sail
went on down below the hull and the w i n d and waves brought them up again
on the weather side and the boat sailed on.
Above, we have shown a cyclical development o f three items ending (where
we started) with a single-hulled boat. Dave Keiper, however, has shown that
by adding fore and aft foils to a hydrofoil-stabilised boat, he can sail right off
the water, at the same time lifting the weather foil out. Perhaps he has the
configuration which w i l l ultimately prove to be the most seaworthy and
efficient.

CHAPTER I
THE

N A T U R E OF HYDROFOILS

July, 1955

A hydrofoil is a thin sheet of material submerged in flowing water. It has

all the main characteristics o f an aerofoil working i n air, but, because water is
thicker stuff" than air, the forces produced by a hydrofoil are very much
greater than the forces produced by a foil of the same size and shape in air.
The value of a hydrofoil is essentially its ability to produce a force acting
almost at right angles to the direction of the water flowing across it and this
force is very much greater than the drag, or the resistance o f the foil to the
water flow. Thus, i f we need a force to act on a boat which is travelling
through the water, we can attach a hydrofoil to the boat and get it.
The main hydrofoils which are used by sailing boats are, of course, the
fin keel, the centreboard, the leeboard and the rudder. The first three o f
these are used to produce forces acting to windward, preventing most o f the
leeway. The rudder, when it is slung separately from the keel, is a simple
hydrofoil which is used to guide the boat. When it is slung on the after
edge o f a fin keel, however, complicated forces are brought into play which
need separate consideration.

Fig. 1 is a diagram o f a hydrofoil with the water flowing past i t . The lines,
called "Streamlines," are the directions in which particles of water travel.
It will be seen that the water flowing past is turned from its course. N o w ,
when a moving body is turned from its course, it means that a force is acting
upon it, and in this case, it means that the foil is exerting a force on the water.
Since action and reaction are equal and opposite, the water is exerting a
force on the foil.
It will also be seen in Fig. 1 that above the foil, the streamlines are crowded
closer together indicating that the water is flowing faster there and below the
foil, they are more widely separated indicating that the water flow is slower.
I n the 18th century, a man called Bernouilli showed that when a fluid flowed
along a pipe with a narrow part in it and, for this reason, had to accelerate,
the pressure in the narrow part was less than in the rest of the pipe. Similarly,
if the pipe had a wider part, the pressure there was increased. The streamlines
around the foil can be thought of as indicating the boundaries of imaginary
pipes because particles of water do not cross them as they move across the
foil so that, where they are closer together above the foil, the pressure becomes
ess and, i n the opposite way, the pressure below the foil increases. Fig. 2
10

shows how the forces at various parts of the foil act. each one at right angles to
the tangent at that part.
The forces shown in Fig. 2 are far too complicated to study but they can all
be combined into two forces namely (1), The " L i f t " acting at right angles to
the water flow and (2), the " D r a g " acting along the direction of the waterflow.
The ratio o f the lift to the drag can be as great as 20 : 1 for hydrofoils o f
certain shapes but, in actual practice, the usual hydrofoil with its connecting
link to the parent structure cannot achieve a lift/drag ratio of that value.
At the free end or ends of hydrofoils large eddies form which result in the
loss of power. It is for this reason that a high "Aspect r a t i o " or great length
of span across the water flow compared to the " C h o r d " or distance along the
water flow is of value because, i f the aspect ratio is high, there is more foil
for the same loss of power at the end or ends.

THE

TRADITIONAL

HYDROFOILS

The centreboard
This type of mechanism for reducing leeway must be able to work equally well
on either tack and thus it must be symmetrical about the midline o f the boat.
Though, in theory, it should be a perfect streamlined shape in the horizontal
plane, in practice a thin plate w i t h the fore and aft ends fined off to points
apparently works just as well. The reason for this appears to be that a
centreboard not only acts as a hydrofoil but it makes surface waves as well,
which alter the characteristics.
The plan shape of the centreboard or the shape when it is looked at from
abeam is capable of a certain amount of argument. The facts, however,
are these: (1) The hull of the boat prevents the formation o f a wing tip eddy
at the upper end of the board so the aspect ratio o f the centreboard is twice
that calculated; (2) I t is generally the case that an aspect ratio o f 6 : 1 is as
good as is needed for ordinary work for either an aerofoil or h y d r o f o i l ;
(3) The greater the aspect ratio, the lower will be the centre of pressure on the
centreboard which will cause the boat to heel more. Therefore, it is advisable
to keep the aspect ratio just on the lower side of efficiency; (4) The ideal shape
of the centreboard is half an ellipse but a triangular shape with the point
downwards will have a higher centre o f pressure and therefore will heel the
boat less.
Taking all the above facts about centreboards into consideration, there is a
good case to be made out for a centreboard being more or less a triangle with

a vertical depth o f U times the fore and aft length along the hull as in Fig. 4.
This gives an aspect ratio of 6 : 1, using the formula Span-/Area and multiplying it by 2 because there is only one wing tip eddy. I t might be w o r t h while
to round off the tip of the triangle to bring the aspect ratio to 5 : 1.
It is well w o r t h remembering that the International Twelve Square Meter
Sharpie class with a centreboard o f about this shape is considered to be a " s t i f f "
boat, though this is usually attributed to moderate sail area.
Ed.: Our view in 1970 ;.v that a \ \ is probably best for a keel or C.B.
See article by Edmond Bruce p. 185.
The fin keel
In this section, we will deal with a fin from which the rudder is quite separate
and is slung at a considerable distance aft. For this type of hydrofoil,
everything which has been said of the centreboard is absolutely the same but.

F.3.

5".

i n practice, we find that the aspect ratios o f fin keels are very much less,
usually being about 1 : 1 or even less which, when doubled to allow for the
absence of the top eddy gives at most 2 : 1 which looks poor indeed by
aeronautical standards. However, in some tank tests by Edmond Bruce
which will be given later, for a flat surface-piercing plate, it was found that
the aspect ratio which gave the greatest " l i f t to drag r a t i o " was 1 : 1 . Again,
it is because surface waves are made that there is a difference from what is
best for aerofoils.
The fin r u d d e r c o m b i n a t i o n
When the rudder is slung on the after edge o f the fin as i n the conventional
deep keeled sailing yacht, all the general rules o f shape as already described
still apply but two extra features appear. The first o f these is a greatly
increased force acting to windward when there is slight weather helm. This
is, of course, due to the whole hydrofoil becoming asymmetrical in a way in
which the " l i f t " force is increased. Tank tests at the Stevens Institute show
that this effect is greatest when the angle of weather helm is about 4 . The
second new feature is concerned with the turning power of the rudder. Here,
the rudder alters the water flow along the main fin so as to produce a t u r n i n g
force in the main fin itself as well as a change in the real centre of lateral
resistance. The exact changes are rather complex.
The leeboard
This device achieved its greatest efficiency among the D u t c h . On the shallow
draught craft of Holland, it became an asymmetrical hydrofoil with the flat
side to the outside and the curved side next to the hull and of occasionally
12

quite high aspect ratio. As a hydrofoil, i t differs f r o m those which we have

previously examined in cutting the surface o f the water and because o f this,
it loses some power.
The separate rudder

( W r i t t e n In 1970)

A rudder slung on the transom of a boat such as is the n o r m a l practice among

dinghys is a simple hydrofoil and is subject to all the forces already examined.
However, like the leeboard, it cuts the surface of the water and thus makes
surface waves even though the tiller is in the centre line of the boat. For this
reason, Uffa Fox at one time slung the rudder below the hull o f one o f his
dinghys and found that the steering had become so fierce that it was possible
to capsize the craft at speed with the rudder action alone. This surely must
have shown an increased etficiency.
I n many modern yachts, the trend is to have a rudder separate f r o m the fin
but, for constructional reasons and to steady the steering, it is slung on a skeg.
In this case, the total skeg-rudder combination should have an aspect ratio
of 1 : 1, as with a fin keel. However, the very latest trend of having a V
shape in the hull between the aft end o f the fin and the skeg (traditionally
known as "deadwood") to keep the turbulence created by the fin from giving
extra resistance to the afterbody, brings in other considerations.

ASYMMETRICAL

HYDROFOILS

Symmetrical hydrofoils produce very little in the way o f lift for the drag they
have at an angle of leeway o f 5. Asymmetrical hydrofoils, on the other
hand, can produce as much as twice the lift for the same drag as a symmetrical
foil. I t would therefore be of great advantage i f the fin keels o f sailing boats
could be asymmetrical with the lee side much flatter than the weather side
because both the weight and wetted surface could be reduced and the sail
area and heeling moment w o u l d become less w i t h these.
The first attempt known to me o f the use o f an asymmetrical fin other than
the D u t c h leeboards was by Manfred Curry who devised a mechanism for
warping both his centreboard and rudder to give a hollow to leeward and a
convexity to windward. It is not k n o w n what happened to the idea or what
success he had with i t .
The next attempt, which proved to be successful, was on the yacht Zeevalk.
Here, the fin keel had the trailing edge hinged like the aileron of an aeroplane
wing and, on each tack, the flap was turned to leeward by about 5 so as to
increase the windward acting force o f the fin. The rudder was, o f course,
slung separately.
There are four other ways, however, of achieving the same object which
spring to the mind. These are:
1 Having two centreboards in two cases or the same case either of which
can be let down as appropriate.
2 Having an L shaped centreboard of w o o d worked by a handle at the side
and kept in place by friction. One o f the arms of the L would be for one
tack and the other for the other tack. B o t h arms o f the L could be raised
as in the position shown by the dotted lines o f Fig. 6.
13

3 A " T u r n over" keel which is shown in Fig. 7. The main part o f the keel
is here pivoted on a fore and aft horizontal axis so that it can be turned
over on putting about so as to keep a flatter side always to leeward.
4 A " T u r n a r o u n d " keel as shown in Fig. 8 where the axle is vertical and the
whole asymmetrical fin swings around a vertical axis on putting about.

Se<-totv of k e e l .

HYDROFOIL STABILISERS
by John Morwood

I95S

Hydrofoils are used on many steamships to prevent them from rolling which
they do very successfully. They consist o f fins which can be r u n out from
the sides of the ship, horizontally. Automatic devices alter their t r i m to the
water flowing along the sides of the ship by twisting them about thwartships
axes and the rolling can be reduced to about 5' on each side o f the vertical.
14

It was thought that this same principle could be applied to a sailing boat,
not only to prevent rolling but also to prevent heeling and, i f the hydrofoils
were to be given an angle of dihedral or slope from the horizontal so that the
outside ends of the foils were higher than the inside ends, a keel or centreboard
would not be necessary. A model was made and it worked perfectly, so
last year (1954) a long hull, 19 ft in length and 2 ft 6 in in beam was made by
Sam Catt and myself and fitted with hydrofoils as shown in the photograph
and Fig. 9.

Manually controlled Inverted T foils

In this craft o f ours, the things like beer pump handles are connected to
cross pieces which are, in turn, connected to the hydrofoil stabilisers which
run beneath the water. The cross pieces are connected to the boat by two
hinges. When one of the handles is pulled back, the hydrofoil on the same
side as the handle swings forwards, thus increasing its angle o f incidence to
the water flow. The water flowing over and under it then lifts it up. As we
have it fixed, these planes are quite large enough to heel the boat to windward
when sailing even close hauled. N o t only do the planes keep the boat from
heeling but they push it to windward so that there does not appear to be
any leeway.
Another factor in favour o f these planes is that the wind pressure tends to
lift the hull of the boat out of the water when it is going at any speed and put
the weight on to the hydrofoil. Fortunately, the foil does not hold the boat
back when weight is put upon it as much as does the hull, so the effect is that
greater speed is obtained. This effect is quite evident if, instead of the lift
of the lee foil being used to keep the craft upright, the windward foil is used
to pull down the weather side of the boat. There is a very distinct slowing
up which is probably due to the increased displacement.
15

We have found this boat nearly normal to sail. It is not necessary to

counterbalance the wind pressure by sitting out to w i n d w a r d so the attention
which the hydrofoil handles need is no hardship and they need very much
less effort than "over the side athletics." There is only one thing which has
caused any difference in handling to a normal dinghy. That is a tendency
for the hydrofoil to " S t a l l " when a strong puff of wind hits the boat when it is
stopped. A slight easing of the sheets till the boat gathers way is then needed.
This hydrofoil craft of ours was a complete success. The hull we used was
very heavy and the hydrofoils were, on the whole, much too big so we d i d not
get any very great speeds from it but i f any A Y R S member wishes to carry on
w i t h this type of mechanism, he will undoubtedly travel at much greater speeds
in much greater comfort than are possible w i t h the ordinary dinghy now in
use. The mechanism is fully capable of being used with any sailing craft
with a great chance that speeds w i l l be increased i n stronger winds. Speeds
will be less in light winds because there is extra wetted surface to be pulled
through the water.
Though the full sized craft we made used hydrofoils which were operated
by hand, the model which I had previously made had foils which worked
automatically from the difference i n pressure on the two foils as a result o f
the sideways pressure o f the sails. N o attempt has so far been made to try
this out full scale.
It is felt that at least some of the success o f these hydrofoils is due to the
smallness of the iron connecting pieces from the outrigger to the foil.
Where
these pierce the water, there is only very little wave making which must only
slow the boat very slightly and, of course, their wetted surface is very much
less than the large flat plates which are usually used as connecting pieces on
hydrofoil motor boats.
16

THE

A L L HYDROFOIL SAILING

CRAFT

A hydrofoil, running at 10 knots at a good lift/drag ratio will lift 2 4 c w t per

square foot of its area. I t must of course, be a good section o f a good aspect
ratio. The lift is proportional to the square o f the speed.
Hugh Barkla, in his paper N o . 3 of the A N U S C estimates that it is possible,
with proper designing o f the struts which connect the hydrofoils to the surface
craft, to get a lift to resistance ratio of 10 : 1. The best that planing hulls
can do is to have a resistance of l / 5 t h to l / 8 t h of the weight. Commander
Miller, U S N , in an article in Yachts and Yachting gives the best ratio which
has actually been attained as 15 : 1. I t is therefore, quite possible that the
answer to really high sailing speeds is to be found in hydrofoils running
below the surface of the water.
Fig. 10 shows 14 ways in which hydrofoils can be arranged. There are
three main ways only, the other eleven being combinations of these. 10a is
the most simple and efficient. It is the method used for my boat's stabilisers
and it has two faults. The first is that its angle o f incidence to the water
flow must be constantly changing as the speed rises and falls. The second is
that its area is fixed so that, i f it is running efficiently at 20 knots, it is four
times too big at 40 knots. The constant changing of the angle of incidence
can be automatically operated in several ways, however, for example by the
"Jockey" floats of the " H o o k H y d r o f i n . "
10b is a step ladder arrangement shown totally submerged but this state
would only occur at low speeds. When travelling fast, one or two of the
"rungs" would be out of the water but would fall down into it as the speed fell.
10c is a long foil only partially submerged but more of it goes under as the
speed falls and more of it comes out as the speed rises. This type is being
used by K e n Pearce at Canvey Island this year, (1955). I t has the fault that air
gets down along the upper surface of the foil and destroys its lift.
lOca shows a sliding foil with a vertical piece in its centre to avoid air entry
down the upper surface. I t would be a very suitable foil for a model using a
strip of D u r a l for both foils.
lOcP, Y and S are variants to allow o f certain parts being more lightly
made.
lOd shows a V and a U foil which are simply two sliding foils placed at an
angle of about 45 from the horizontal and joined together at the b o t t o m either
directly or by a horizontal piece. Three of the V foils are used i n the Baker
hydrofoil craft, two being at the fore end and one at the stern, the stern V
being used for steering. The Baker craft is reported as doing 23 m p h i n
a 15 mph breeze. The two limbs of the Baker hydrofoil V are placed at
an angle of approximately 60 to each other.
lOda is a combination of the U foil of lOd. w i t h a 10a foil of the high
efficiency type. This would be a very suitable foil to have at the bow combined
with high efficiency foils amidships. I t could then act like the "Jockey,"
float of the " H o o k H y d r o f i n . " The high efficiency foil below the U w o u l d
absorb most of the forward capsizing moment o f the sails but the tip o f the U
17

C ot

4(3

foil could be made to just skip along the water surface and thus alter the angle
of incidence o f the main (high efficiency) foils. As the speed increased, the
main foils would develop more lift and rise up which, because the forward U
is in contact with the surface, would reduce their angle o f incidence, thus
keeping the craft i n stable fore and aft t r i m .
lOd fi, Y, 8 and ^ are midship foils w i t h a U foil above to reduce foil area
at speed and a high efficiency foil below which is angled to absorb the lateral
force of the sails and keep the craft upright.
18

The lateral s t a b i l i t y of f o i l borne craft

It is believed that the sideways stability can be fully maintained by using two
main high efficiency foils in such a way that the lines of action of the lift which
they create meet the midline of the craft above the centre o f effort of the
sails. I f this is done, a foil borne craft cannot be capsized sideways. This is
because, at a side force of the sails greater than a critical amount, the weather
foil starts to exert a downwards force. This effect can be made greater by
making the main foils so that their angles of incidence can be altered as with
my hydrofoil stabilizers. I t is reduced by such things as centreboards (which
should not be necessary anyway) and large flat connectives. The Baker craft
with three V foils could, of course, be capsized not only sideways but also
stern over bows, though both are extremely unlikely.
The f o r e and aft s t a b i l i t y of f o i l borne craft
The forward capsize may seem very hypothetical to some people but these
craft can be made extremely light in weight and the sails exert their force high
above the water so the possibility must always be kept in mind.
Fore and aft trim can be held in two ways. Firstly, it can be got by the
use of a stern foil which carries part of the weight of the craft at slow speeds
but, should the force on the sails ever start to lift the stern, this foil could be
set at an angle downwards so as to pull the stern down. Secondly, it can be
got by the use of a forward foil which, like a stern foil doing the same j o b ,
carries part of the weight, but in this case, no matter how the wind blows, only
extra weight would be thrown on the foil. This means that the w o r k which
the foil is doing never changes its direction and so it should be easier to use.
In my opinion, it is a better mechanical principle. I t has, however, the faults
that, firstly, the water has to be pierced in an extra place aft for the rudder
and secondly, owing to the extra strut running down to the forward foil, the
craft would be harder to steer.
The disposition of foils
The disposition of the foils to support the boat is still very much a matter of
conjecture. The following methods have been or could be used:
1 Ken Pearce is using four foils, two forward and two aftthe most stable
arrangement and very suitable for the sliding foils he is using.
2 J. A . Lawrence is using an oblique V main foil w i t h a manually controlled
aft foil. He may expect his craft to heel while on the foils.
3 A broad U foil with the straight piece stretching right across the craft
would be a useful main foil of the heeling type.
4 The Baker hydrofoil craft uses two V foils forward and one V foil aft.
5 John Westell suggests two sliding foils forward and one high efficiency foil
(10a) on the rudder.
6 The Grunberg method consists of two high efficiency foils amidship with
two "skis" running along the surface o f the water forward. The forward
"skis" automatically adjust the angle of incidence of the main foils so that
the hull "files" at the correct height above the water.
7 This same principle could be employed slightly differently by using two
foils of type 10d5 amidships combined w i t h a type lOda forward. A t low
speeds, such a craft would be using the U foils but at high speeds the main
19

foils would become o f the highest efficiency and the forward horizontal
foil would prevent the forward U foil from disturbing the water as much as
it otherwise would. (For a model, I would use main foils o f type lOca
of Dural).
8 The " H o o k H y d r o f i n " has automatically controlled main foils and a fixed,
high efficiency stern foil.
A l l these eight methods are fully automa'ic (so far as is k n o w n ) and do not
need any attention from the crew when sailing. The ability of some types
to capsize either forward or sideways would have to be investigated. The
following method is not automatically controlled:
9 Three high efficiency foils could be worked by a " j o y stick." The rudder
could be worked by the feet, leaving the crew of one w i t h his other hand
free to manage the sheets. In this case, the main foils w o u l d act as stabilizers at very low speeds and the sheets could be held by j a m b cleats. I t
is not known whether it would be best to have the single foil forward to
absorb the forward capsizing moment of the sails or aft on the rudder
where at really high speeds it might have to exert a downwards acting
force, thus holding the craft back.
The efficiency of foils
T H E S L I D I N G F O I L . The main virtue o f this type o f foil is that its angle o f
incidence to the water flow can stay the same at all speeds. I t will naturally
be set to give the greatest lift/drag ratio. Both the lift and drag of foils
increase with the square of the speed, i f they are totally immersed. This
means that, i f we ignore the inefficiencies o f this foil, it will have a constant
drag quite irrespective of the speed. This can best be understood i f we take
the example of a doubling of the speed when the lift o f the submerged part
will increase fourfold resulting in only one quarter o f the foil remaining i n
the water. The drag of this quarter will be four times as great as it was, so
the total drag will be the same as at half the speed. The upper surface air
entry, the decrease in aspect ratio and the surface waves keep this from
occurring, however, the resistance in practice being approximately proportional
to the speed up to the point where the tip of the foil only is submerged when
it increases greatly due to the high loading.
T H E H I G H EFFICIENCY F O I L . A S compared w i t h the sliding foil, this type
will usually meet the water flow at varying angles o f incidence. For this
reason, it need be only half the area of the sliding foil to lift the hull out o f
the water because it can use a greater angle of incidence. The drag of each
would be about the same, however, i f the inefficiencies of both are ignored.
However, it would appear from the aerofoil graphs at my disposal that, as
the speed increases, the angle o f incidence would become less and this w o u l d
have such a marked effect on the drag that it would actually be less at twice
the speed at which the hull lifted clear than it was at that moment. There
comes a point, however, when this effect no longer appears and the drag
once more increases in p r o p o r t i o n to the square of the speed.

M I S C E L L A N E O U S USES F O R H Y D R O F O I L S
A h y d r o f o i l t o reduce displacement
I t has been shown that the majority o f the stability o f n o r m a l keeled yachts
is due to their shape rather than to the weight o f the keel. The weight is
20

used more to prevent a capsize than to increase sail carrying power, though it
does have a marked beneficial eff'ect on the latter. I t might, i n some circumstances therefore, be useful to have a hydrofoil on the keel as shown in Fig. 11
to reduce the displacement. It is unlikely that this would help when close
hauled.
A h y d r o f o i l instead of ballast
As compared with the last possible use, a hydrofoil which was hinged to the
bottom of the keel in the fore and aft axis and acted vertically downwards
could replace the ballast weight altogether. This arrangement is shown in
Fig. 12.

T h e flap f o i l
Fig. 13 shows a diagram o f what may be called a " F l a p f o i l . " The
essential nature of this is a hydrofoil hinged at its forward edge so that the
trailing edge can move freely up and down through an arc of a circle. Though
the hinge allows this movement, the foil is fixed by it at right angles to the
supporting bar.
Though it is quite possible that the flap foil may prove to have hidden
possibilities, only three are at present seen where it might be of value. The
first of these is shown i n Fig. 14 where i t is fixed over the tail end o f a yacht
and by the up and down movement of the handle, a driving force is created
of the nature of up and down sculling. This could be considered to be a
refined version of the Chinese " U l o h " or large sculling oar, though this was
worked from side to side more like the method used to scull small boats.
This device could, of course, be made fully efficient and has the added advantage that, i f the handle were to bs fixed so that it could not move up or down
the lop of either a following or head sea would drive the boat along in a
calm.
The second use for the flap foil is to fix one on either side of a yacht to get
forward drive from a beam swell i n a calm i n the same way as was suggested
for the stern flap foil. Flap foils of this k i n d could not only be used for this
purpose but they could probably also be used as stabilizers. Thus, they could
be left as fixtures on the yacht except at moorings or against a harbour wall.
21

W a t e r stilts
The third use for flap foils is shown in Fig. 15 though it is not anticipated that,
when the wind fails, some member of the crew will be really sent over the
side w i t h one of these queer things to give the parent yacht a tow back home.
Here, the arc of flap of the foils will be arranged to give only a very fine angle

22

of glide on the downstroke. The manipulator (or should 1 say pedipulator?) o f

this amazing vehicle stands on one side till it almost sinks to the water and
then transfers his weight on the other side. One side must be rising as the
other side is going down and this can be arranged by having a streamlined
float attached to the foil in such a way that the centre of its buoyancy is i n
front of the pivot. The float will then pull upwards, twisting the foil d o w n wards when no weight is upon it. There is a stern foil with a small vertical
fin to give directional stability. It should be possible to steer by giving one
or two extra strokes on one side or the other.

23

CHAPTER I I
THE B A K E R HYDROFOIL SAILING

CRAFT

Made by: T h e Baker Manufacturing C o m p a n y ,

Wisconsin, Illinois, U.S.A.

W r i t t e n 1970

We show the two photographs we have of the Baker sailing craft. These
were made about 1954 and 1955 but we have never had any account o f how
they sailed or of the technique of sailing them.

Baker Hydrofoil 23 mph in 15 knot wind

Photo

Yachts

and

Yachting

The t h r e e " V " craft

This, apparently, was the earlier of the two craft and was the first application
to our knowledge, of 60 degrees of dihedral to hydrofoils. This large dihedral
was obviously used to prevent air entrainment down unfenced foils. We have
no clear knowledge of the foil section but it looks as i f it were a simple arc
of a circle top and flat under surface.
As shown, the boat would have very little static stability, i f any, and one
guesses that the craft was got onto the foils by being pulled by a power boat
and then cast loose. Once sailing, the dynamic stability is likely to have been
adequate but we have no knowledge o f whether or not the boat could put
about or gybe without coming off the foils and therefore losing stability.
24

The " l a d d e r f o i l " M o n i t o r

This was made for the US Navy. It was a large boat some 30 or more feet
long, with a good deal of stabihty in the hull due to the flat floor.
The "ladder foils" are a modification o f those used by Alexander Graham
Bell, the inventor of the telephone, in that a dihedral of some 40 degrees was
used for the lifting foils which must have been a l u m i n i u m extrusions. Bell's
foils had no dihedral because the application was for a power boat.

"Monitor" Ttie Batcer Craft which has done 30 m.p.h.

As w i t h the three " V " small sailing boat, there was stern steering but the
details of the stern foils are not fully known. A single or double strut down
to a horizontal foil is the most likely method.
Though we believe that, in the first sails with this boat, she was towed
off the water, we have also heard that she was successfully sailed off the
water under sail power and a speed of 35 knots was claimed. However,
we have not heard how she behaved when putting about or gybing.
25

The Baker m o t o r h y d r o f o i l

"HIGHPOCKETS"

This craft, using four " V " foils, this time apparently o f about 90 degree
dihedral, appeared to shoot over the water with very little wash. A l l four
foils seemed to have been fixed and steering was accomplished by the outboard
motor.
The foils again appeared to be of light alloy.
Seaworthiness
People talk darkly of "The crash dive" and other phenomena o f hydrofoil
boats. The crash dive is when the forward foils get negative incidence and
drag the boat into the water. We do not know i f the Baker craft suffered
from any or all of these things. One suspects that the inability to put about
or gybe was a serious drawback.
Subsequent history
Somehow, it is the fate of the majority o f hydrofoil boats to achieve a modest
fame because they work and then never to appear again. Obviously, the
motor hydrofoils in large size are tremendously expensive and need a good
paying route such as a passenger-carrying ferry to be "cost-effective." Sailing
hydrofoils, too, can be too expensive for the average yachtsman and the
psychological climate in 1955 was not conducive to accepting even catamarans
as yachts, let alone hydrofoils. Fortunately, in 1970, when this is being
written, the yachtsman is much more open minded. But, of course, the boat
he accepts must suit the waters in which he sails and, to be o f value as a
yacht, a hydrofoil must be able to put about and beat to windward, either
on or off the foils.

PROF. A R T H U R LOCKE'S

HYDROFOILS

Monty Montgomery, the Editor of Muhihtill

material at our disposal for this article.

liminatioiml,

has kindly put his

TWEEDLEDUM-TWEEDLEDEE
is 34 ft, 10 ft beam, gross weight
3,200 lb, with a sail area of 500 sq ft was built in 1951 and is now owned
by Byron Wright, of Armada, Michigan.
She is a catamaran and, to my memory, was fitted with a single large foil
sweeping right across her from outside gunwale to outside gunwale at one
time and flew on this but further details are not known to me.
TWEEDLEDUM-TWEEDLEDEE
has been converted from an open day
boat to a cabin cruiser and has had the sail plan increased to compensate
for the 1,000 lb of extra weight. In a letter M o n t y had from Byron Wright,
he said that she was timed last year at 20 mph on Lake St. Clair, but no
mention of the foils is made and she must now be simply a catamaran.
SKID
Arthur Locke also produced catamarans called GAIL and
YOSHI-MORU
but his foil-cat SKID was the only other one fitted with hydrofoils.
26

SKID's

main foils
27

SKID was 20 ft x 12 ft, with a weight o f 710 lbs and a sail area o f 270 sq ft.
The foils have 18 sq ft o f area. She was built in and sailed on her foils i n
1954. The photographs show her on moorings, there is a close-up o f the
amidships foils and she is shown sailing above the water in the N o r t h Channel
of the St. Clair river, Algonac, Michigan on 7th September, 1964. The
report on this event runs as follows:
"When on one port tack and heading about 300' near the middle channel
light, wind speed 12-15 mph, the bottom of the port hull lifted about 2 ft
completely out of the waterthe hulls then levelled off, with the b o t t o m o f
the hulls about 6 in clear of the wave tops, both hulls being level fore and
aft, and athwartships in respect of each other. The vessel continued to sail
in this attitude.
"The total time on foils was about one minutethere was no pitching or
rolling."

A CATOFOIL DESIGN
by O w e n Dumpleton

A p r i l , 1956

The accompanying plans show a design which was inspired by the H y d r o f o i l

demonstrations at the Annual General Meeting o f the A Y R S . I t is based on
two standard SHEARWATER
I I 18 ft hulls.
The hulls are firmly bound by a light framework o f hollow struts which are
covered above and below by plywood. The bridge is exceptionally high to
give extra strength for the same weight. It is my intention to make a scale
model for testing in a wind tunnel with a view to deciding just how high one
can build the superstructure. It might be possible to raise it enough to
include some Spartan accommodation.

29

On either side o f the hulls are two angled leeboards set at an angle o f
incidence which, with a T foil at the stern, could lift the hulls off the water to
convert the craft into a hydrofoil boat. The forward foils are of the triangular
plan form which maintains a constant aspect ratio whatever the immersion
and they are clamped in position when sailing.
For gravity balance, the leeboards-foils could not be any further aft and
their position as shown would imply a certain amount o f the lateral thrust
being taken by the rudder. As shown by T o t h i l l , this is liable to cause rudder
" S t a l l " when bearing away at low speeds. It would therefore be as well to
leave provision for moving the mast further forward a few inches or possibly
for fitting a bowsprit, although she might do as she is and would I think, be
better balanced when on the foils.

HYDROFOIL DESIGN IN 1956

The drawing shows a system of Float-hydrofoils which we worked out in 1956.

We intended to have it built by the Prouts of Canvey Island but, like many an
idea, it never saw the light of day.
The cross member is made of a sheet o f plywood rolled into an aerofoil
section over one or more cross beams. The wind should give a certain
amount of lift from it when close hauled. From the model experiments, a
beam of 14 ft is thought to be enough.
The floats in the original design were 3 ft long by 4J in thick. The Prout
brothers think that this is not big enough and are increasing them slightly all
round. They reach to 1 ft below the b o t t o m o f the hull. Their lower
edges slope upwards towards the front at an angle o f 7 to give an angle o f
attack to the foils of approximately 5 . The lower surfaces are flat, and
though 1 originally had them horizontal in the side to side direction, the
Prouts suggest sloping them up in line with the lower surfaces of the foils.
This not only makes for easier construction but it may help to prevent a
slight jerk which appears in the model when the lower surfaces o f the floats
break the surface of the water. The float section is the same up and down its
length with the greatest beam in the middle. It is pointed fore and aft.
30

The forward foils are triangular in plan form to keep the aspect ratio the
same at all amounts of immersion and are set to the Baker angle o f dihedral
of 40. Our first trial will be with foils 2 ft long and 1 ft 4 in in fore and aft
length at the top. From the available information, this should give us enough
lift to make the craft foil borne at 8 knots i f its weight is 350 lbs complete.
The wing tips are rounded to prevent some o f the end losses o f the triangular
plan form. A certain amount o f experiment with the foils may be necessary
to get the best size and shape. For instance, the shape should give us the
equivalent of an aspect ratio o f 6 : 1 because we only have to suffer one set
of wing tip losses but an increased aspect ratio might be better.
The foil section is shown on the drawing. The upper surface is an arc of
a circle. The lower surface is flat but it is "Relieved" at the fore edge by a
rise of l/60th of the chord. The thickness is l/12th of the chord but may,
apparently, be 1/lOth without losing very much, i f anything.
The stern foil is a simple T foil connected to a "Joy Stick" to give rudder
and incidence control by a Prout modification of the mechanism used on the
"Hurricane" aircraft. The model does not need incidence control but it
31

might help in getting the full sized craft foil borne. We are starting with a
stern foil 3 ft in span by 6 in in chord which is probably too big.
Towing tests on the model show that at low speeds, stability is due to
floatation.
As the speed rises, the lower surfaces o f the floats start to plane
which they should also do when cut up to the 40 angle of the foils. Eventually, the craft is entirely foil borne.
When coming into shallow water, the two bars across the " W i n g " can be
swung back and the wing can then be twisted forwards on the hinges at its
leading edge, lifting the foils and floats up enough to save them from damage
but still allowing them to be used for stability. The stern foil can be sloped
back by a similar mechanism to that used with outboard motors.
Owing to the considerable modification of my original plans and their
interpretation in terms of constructional detail by Roland and Francis Prout.
the final designs of the completed craft must be considered to belong to the
three of us.
Northside, High Road, South Benfleet, Essex

L e t t e r f r o m : K e n Pearce

January, 1956

Dear Sir,
ENDEA VOUR is now laid up for the winter season and experiments have been
shelved until the weather gets a little warmer. Towards the end o f last
summer, I had one partially successful run on my hydrofoils with the boat
practically clear of the water. Unfortunately, at this stage, the operating
gear showed several failures and first one and then finally both forward
hydrofoils collapsed under the hulls. W i t h the weight factor so much in
mind, one is always inclined to under-estimate the strains and stresses imposed
upon a boat when the wind blows fresh.
Ken Pearce
Ed.Ken's trials were made with 4 hydrofoils on his catamaran, one near
each corner and each of a dihedral of about 45 . This is the same system
which James Grogono used in 1969.
L e t t e r f r o m : K e n Pearce
14, Hermitage Avenue, Kiln Road, Benfleet, Essex

Dear John,

August 17, 1970.

ENDEAVOUR

REPORT

Many thanks for your letter of the 31st July, and 1 am enclosing herewith
details of the Hydrofoils and operating gear that I built and fitted to my
catamaran ENDEAVOUR
in the Spring of 1955.
It was not until the racing season was over that my son and I were able to
devote full time during September, October and November 1955, at Burnhamon-Crouch, to getting the craft sailing on the hydrofoils and this we were able
to achieve on several occasions.
Four separate foils (details o f which are enclosed on the drawings herewith.
Nos. 1641/A and 1641/B) were fitted fore and aft to each hull. When the
foils were first fitted, they were hinged on steel control shafts rotating i n double
bearings athwartships. When the boat was launched and it was sailing as a
32

normal catamaran and the w i n d became strong enough the foils were swung
outwards on the hinges and fastened under the hulls. We were able to adjust
the dihedral angle from 30 to 60 but 45 was found to give the best results.
The control shafts that the foils were fitted to were connected together w i t h
wire cables, and then the master shaft fitted forward between the two hulls
was connected by wire cables to a vertical tiller 4 ft high, hinged in the centreboard case. This enabled the crew to pull back the vertical tiller which
swung the foils forward and increased the angle o f lift. As soon as the boat
had lifted on to the foils the crew could push the tiller forward to decrease
the angle of incidence which would then allow the craft to go faster on the foils.
When she was sailing on the foils I was able to study their action through
the water, and with the boat sailing on approximately 10 to 14 in foil depth,
half of the back side of the foils, from water level downwards, was cavitating.
On one occasion, when the boat was travelHng fairly fast, the tiller was
pushed too far forward and the bows drove down in the water. We then
fitted a tiller stop in the centreboard case to make sure that this would not
happen again. We also decided to fix the aft foils at a selected angle and
lock them i n a fixed position, only controlling the lift o f the craft by altering
the angle of the forward foils w i t h the vertical tiller, and this made i t much
easier to get the bows of the craft up and sailing on the foils only. The
problem was to keep driving the boat very hard, enough to get her up on the
aft foils as well, but as soon as there was a l u l l i n the wind strength the craft
would settle down by the stern and then we would have to start driving i t
hard all over again.
During the end of November we had one of the most successful sails on
the hydrofoils in a very heavy breeze and choppy seas, and this caused the
33

forward shaft to bend until the foils were resting underneath the hulls. It
was then decided not to do any more experiments as we had gained a lot o f
knowledge. I t was our intention to re-design the whole set up the following
year but this, in fact, we never got around to doing because of the introduction
o f the British Speed Trials in 1956. After winning the Speed Trials I felt
that we were creating a tremendous interest in the yachting fraternity by
persevering with ENDEAVOUR
and re-designing and testing out new sail
plans and rigging, steering gear and rudders, daggerboards and centreboards,
etc. etc.
ENDEA
1955
1956

1957

1958

VO UR's Achievements
Sailing on Hydrofoils.
Winner of the British Speed Trials at Cowes.
Holder of the British Speed Record (see Guinness Book o f Records).
Winner of the Folkestone/Bologne Cross Channel Race.
Full racing season.
Requested to take Prince Philip out sailing aboard
ENDEAVOUR
at Cowes.
Winner o f the second Folkestone/Bologne Cross Channel Race.

L e t t e r f r o m : T . K . Pearce.

25 Hall Park Avenue, Westcliffe-on-Sea, Essex.

Dear M r . M o r w o o d ,

September 14, 1970.

I have read Father's account o f our experiment w i t h ENDEAVOUR

using
hydrofoils and would confirm that it is an accurate statement o f what occurred.
However, I am not able to state categorically that the boat hulls were
completely clear o f the water, as it was not possible to ascertain this from my
34

position on board. There is no question that the bows rose clear from the
water on many occasions, but as Father has explained, it was much more
difficult to get her up on the stern foils. By comparison w i t h modern
catamarans i.e. TORNADO,
ENDEAVOUR
was quite heavy, and having a
wooden bridge deck throughout, her centre of gravity was well aft of amidships, and this obviously put much loading on the aft foils.
When we attained sufficient speed there was no doubt that we were getting
considerable lift from the aft foils, but is impossible for me to say whether
the hulls were completely clear of the water or not, because o f the water
disturbance and spray at these times.
Trusting this letter will help,
TERRY PEARCE.

L e t t e r f r o m : K e n Pearce. 14 Hermitage Avenue, Kiln Road, Thundersley, Benfleet,

Essex.

Dear John,
September 15, 1970.
I thought I had mentioned in my letter to you that ENDEAVOUR
sailed
on hydrofoils on several occasions.
The facts are that it was not too difficult to get her up on the forward t w i n
foils, but it had to be driven hard to get her up on both rear foils as well
and the hulls clear of the water, but as soon as the wind eased she w o u l d
settle down aft with 3 or 4 ft of the hulls trailing in the water and we had to
drive it very hard again. There is no doubt whatever that several times she
sailed on all four foils but not very high out o f the water aft, but the hulls
were clear of the water except for spray and odd waves.
K E N PEARCE.

SOME H Y D R O F O I L
by D. R. Robertson

EXPERIMENTS

August, 1956

I n the summer of 1955 an attempt was made to get the highest possible speed
from a 15 foot sailing canoe. The hull, which weighed 105 lbs, had been
fitted with outriggers (30 lbs each) the previous summer but, although these
gave good results, it was thought that i f they could be held clear o f the water
with hydrofoils, an improved performance would result.
The sketches show the three hydrofoil configurations which were tested:
A. The boat handled normally both close hauled and reaching w i t h
relatively little change of rudder balance. By bearing away in gusts o f 15 to
20 mph, the bow would lift about 2 ft. There was a lot o f spray but not much
increase of speed. W i t h any reduction o f w i n d speed, the bow dropped and
resistance at low speeds was heavy.
B. W i t h this type of foil, it was hoped that the lee float w o u l d be lifted
clear and that the main hull would plane. A t a wind speed o f 15 mph, the
1 ;e float did lift out and momentarily there was a very considerable increase o f
speed and obviously much less resistance. However, as the lee float lifted
higher, the weather float touched the water and this immediately stopped the
boat and it fell off the plane. This rising and falling of the float and f o i l
could be repeated over and over.
35

C
C. This was the "cleanest" and the easiest to retract for launching.
Unfortunately, in a heavy wind there did not seem to be any appreciable
difference in speed with or without the hydrofoil in use. I t was possible
that either (1) the foil area was too small, (2) the angle o f attack (5) was
insufficient or (3) the foil section was too crude. This was a flat plate bent
to a small curve. These could have been altered i f the experiments had been
continued.
By this time, the writer had come to the conclusion that the experiments
were not going to prove as successful as had been hoped. The practical
disadvantages o f foils were found to be:
1 Vulnerable when launching.
2 Difficult to lock i n position i f retractable, even w i t h the m i n i m u m o f way on.
36

Don Robertson with lee float lifted by a hydrofoil

3 A "messy" looking boat.

Apart from these snags, it was realised that with a really fast boat, the
wind is always ahead and the boat is sailing close hauled. Under these
conditions, the foils, which were designed to reduce the water resistance by
giving lift, were more of a hindrance than an asset. I t was therefore considered that more could be gained by attempting to reduce water resistance in
other ways, for instance: very light weight, long thin hulls (catamaran) or
possibly by getting lift instead o f a downward thrust from the sails.
It is not suggested that the experiments described were in any way conclusive.
I n fact photographs have been printed showing hydrofoil boats clear o f the
water and i f anyone would like to have the boat for further experiments, they
are welcome to it a low price. It really is quite suitable for foil experiments
as it has good lateral stability and yet is very light and strong.

L e t t e r f r o m : A l a n V . Coles

7635, Herschel Avenue, La Jolla, California

Sir,
I have conducted some model experiments and have succeeded in producing a
model catamaran which becomes foil borne on combined angled and ladder
foils. N o w , I have been considering making a sailing boat o f the type made
by Sam Catt and yourself (described in HYDROFOILS). However, I feel that a
more natural control system for the foils could be arranged on the lines o f the
attached sketch. This system is that used for elevons in many aircraft and
would give lift and roll control with instinctive motions analagous to flying
an aircraft.
37

X
I have in mind a craft using one drop tank as hull with a single man crew
sitting inside it. There would be the control column as I have just described
it for the foils; the rudder would be controlled by a foot bar, leaving one hand
free to manage sheets. Can anyone in the A Y R S give me any experience in
respect to the sail area which might be carried by such craft, if it would be
feasible to sail it at all?
A l a n V. Coles

HYDROFOILS
by Bob H a r r i s

December, 1957

It is too early in the game to evaluate the use of hydrofoils on power boats,
let alone sailers, but one thing seems to be emerging from what work has
been done. Firstly, it is apparent that, in order to be efficient, they must be
used at high speeds. Secondly, they are not a great deal more efficient than
good planing forms except in rough water. This second fact is important,
however, because the bane o f sustained high speeds on the water is the sea.
I f big payloads can be carried through thick and thin, then the hydrofoils
are justified, even though the foils themselves displace a good bit of the
payload.
For sailing boats, 1 believe that, with hydrofoils, they will be able to attain
their maximum speeds because it has been shown that the L i f t / D r a g ratio
( L / D ) is higher for the hydrofoil boat and for this reason, more weight can
be lifted for the same horse power. I f you can lift a boat clear of the water,
in this way getting rid of wetted area and wave making resistance, the forward
speed will be better.
The big drawback to the use of hydrofoils on a sailing boat is the fact that
it takes considerable speed to get it up on the foils and it takes a sustained
breeze to keep it there. Anyone who sails is well acquainted with the vagaries
of the wind and will at once realise the difficulty o f staying on the foils.
Therefore, unless the foils can be easily retracted and extended, their use for a
good all round racer is precluded. There w i l l be very few times when a
sailboat will be able to make maximum use of the foils, and, in the meantime,
their weight must be carried about and they will surely be a strain on the
arrangement of a good racer.
38

Since a sail boat lays askew in the water when going to windward or reaching,
a low aspect ratio foil w o u l d cause serious wave and eddy making. H i g h
aspect ratio foils are therefore called for and these are more difficult to make
and to stow or retract, though the loads w i l l be small i n the small light sailing
hulls such as the Prout catamarans and the lighter planing dinghys. The
catamaran or trimaran seem to offer the best possibility of retracting high
aspect ratio foils because o f their good beam.
Surface piercing foils seem to be best for a sail boat. This type requires a
good deadrise or dihedral and some sweep back to avoid air entrainment.
Their advantage lies in their ability to rise out o f the water as the pressures
increase, thus reducing their drag. The lee foil is also able to take up the
side force more evenly and with less drag than a fully submerged foil. Such
a foil is indeed difficult to retract but in Fig. 10, I have sketched a possibility
for the catamaran which seems to lend itself better than other types for retracting since, as is shown in the sketch, the foils stow completely out of sight
and out of water under the wing. As soon as time permits, we w i l l try out
this foil configuration and give a detailed report on i t .
39

CHAPTER I I I

JEHU, 1957
by John Morwood

December, 1957

This year, Sandy Watson has rigged up the A Y R S catamaran in the Melagasy
version o f the Indonesian configuration. Commercial surfboards manufactured by Thamesply L t d . and kindly presented to the A Y R S were mounted
at the ends of a Tchetchet-style cross beam system 12 ft wide. The connectives
between the board and cross beam were boxed in enough to give about 60 lbs
of buoyancy on each side. Sandy also redecked the main hull and moved the
tiller forward by cross bars and lines, all most cleverly and neatly done.

Sailing the boat as a Melagasy outrigger

The design
JEHUs
main hull is from the SHEARWATER
U mould and has a
SHEARWATER rudder. The mast and sails carry about 100 sq ft of canvas. The
surf boards (4 ft by 1 ft), with upturned bows, were screwed and glued to the
connectives on the cross beams without any angle of attack but they were
given 30" of slope out (dihedral). The whole outrigger system was then
mounted on the hull with 10 of slope from the horizontal to give the surf
boards that angle of attack to the water.
Performance
I t was quite obvious when we started to sail that we had hit an excellent
configuration. The cross beams produced a very comfortable armchair for
the person producing counterpoise and it was very easy to balance the craft
so that only the after part o f the inside edge of the lee surf board was touching
the water. I n strong winds, the surf boards produced good planing lift and
made sitting the craft up unnecessary for stability but it added to the speed.
Again, the Tchetchet cross beams were found useful as another comfortable
seat again appeared further outboard.
40

Tchetchet-style cross beams and surfboards

Handling
Handling was very simple indeed. The main sheet could be tied at all times
because of the enormous stability given by the 13 ft o f beam, leaving only the
j i b sheet and the tiller to attend when putting about. I t seemed that the fore
and aft t r i m was satisfactory with a single person on the outrigger beam,
though we have never been able to drive her to the limit. Sitting forward
of the mast was very convenient as one was completely clear o f the booman
unusual and very pleasant thing.

Faults
A t first, when we had no centreboard, putting about was difficult.
Lee
boards were then fitted on each float and putting about became as easy as
with a catamaran.
The only minor fault still left is that the surf boards are
only boxed in for their middle 4 i n . As a result the water flow is able to
get on top of the boards to produce extra wetted surface and an uneven
water flow. The whole o f the tops of the surf boards should have been boxed
as shown dotted in the diagram.

Summary
The Melagasy outrigger configuration w i t h Tchetchet-style beam mounted
on a SHEAR WA TER H hull makes a delightful craft to sail. I t is essentially
a single hander, though we often filled it w i t h five or six children. I t can
quickly be taken apart into its two main pieces and easily transported on the
roof of a car. The total weight is about 150 lbs. I t is unfortunate that
Sandy Watson was not at home for most o f the summer and I , of course, have
little time for practical sailing. Thus, JEHU has not been well enough tested
but, i n our seven or eight outings, she was a beauty.
41

JEHU*S H Y D R O F O I L S
When fitting the lee boards to JEHU,
the only logical way o f having them
retractable was to hinge them and retract them inwards.
Hinged struts held
them i n position, either up or down. I t was, of course, quickly seen that
if they were angled i n at the Baker angle of 40, they would function as hydro-

foil stabilisers. We soon tried them as such and, to our delight, we found
that the surf boards could be completely lifted off the water by the angled-in
lee board. This occurred at a relatively l o w speed; about 4 knots. A t
speeds greater than 5 knots no sitting out was necessary and the craft sailed
close hauled very nearly w i t h the crew placed just as they wished and the
surf board raised off the water.
Summary
JEHU's
leeboards, when angled-in at 40 from the horizontal, appeared to
function as excellent hydrofoil stabilisers. I t is too early to say i f there are
any snags in this but there d i d not appear to be any. We certainly need
more experience.

HYDROFOIL STABILISERS
I think that people have been frightened to use hydrofoils so far because
they have felt that they must go the whole way at once and rise right off the
water. This is, of course, a fascinating concept but we should not t r y to
get there in one leap. The people who have tried it recently have all failed
simply because, i f one makes a craft for rising out o f the water, there cannot
be the development of the foils themselves which comes from sailing for
pleasure w i t h a mechanism which works. I f we had a whole fleet o f racing
craft which used hydrofoil stabilisers, i n only one or two years we would
have the hydrofoils improved to such an extent that we would have our flying
foil craft.
42

The logical method to try for this development is to fit hydrofoil stabilisers
to either the HORNET
or INTERNATIONAL
CANOE
both o f which
would allow their use for racing, as outriggers are not barred. Because
the cost of the foils w o u l d be so small, it is unlikely that the rule makers
would immediately ban their use as would happen, of course, i f they were an
improvement and expensive.
Hydrofoil stabilisers could also be added to the Melagasy Indonesian
canoe by tilting the surf board at 40 and having a dagger slot just above it
and below the buoyancy. Or the JEHU
system can be used, which is easier
to retract, if heavier and needing more beam.
Summary
Hydrofoil stabilisers should be developed and used in such craft as the
HORNET, INTERNA
TIONAL CANOE or with the Melagasy surf boards on a
catamaran type hull. This would very soon develop hydrofoils to the stage
where an all-hydrofoil craft would be possible. I am glad to say that Reg
Briggs, of Folkestone, is now carrying out a series of foil tests on a
FLEETWIND dinghy which already have shown that heeling can be abolished by
hydrofoils. The most successful foils w i l l , I hope, be at the Boat Show for
inspection.

W A V E P O W E R DEVICE

February, 1958

The photograph shows A r t h u r Fiver's dinghy NUTSHELL

fitted
with fins
in a preliminary attempt to produce a self-propelled lifeboat. The object
is to convert rolling and pitching movements into forward motion. The
account of it is included here because, i f it can be successfully developed, it
might enable a sailing ship to get some natural motive power to help it along
i n a calm or in crossing the Doldrums.

Arthur River's flap foil boat

43

The fins
There are three o f these made of plastic material, square in shape fixed at
their forward ends to pieces o f w o o d which are, in turn, attached to the
vertical struts. There is enough flexibility in the fins for them to move up and
down as the boat rocks, thus pushing the boat along. Plastic was used for
the fins because Arthur Piver was not sure o f the most effective angle for
solid ones and he also felt that much power might be lost as the solid fin
swivelled from one pole to the other. The plastic fins are ready to w o r k
with the slightest movement. However, I cannot believe that much power
would be lost during the change-over, i f any, because it would only go to the
natural roll-damping property of the hull.
Performance
When the boat was rocked in smooth water, it moved along (much to the
amazement of spectators). I t "Fishtailed" as it did so, incidentally, which
might indicate that another fin is needed at the stern, mounted vertically
instead of horizontally like the others. However, it was decided that too
little power for practical purposes was developed by wave motion from the
form used.
Improvements
A much higher aspect ratio could well be tried in the fins which should, i n my
opinion, be solid. I f one wanted to avoid the " D e a d p o i n t , " they could be
attached by a strip of spring steel and stops would be needed in the strut.
W i t h these changes, I believe that considerably more power would be developed
and, of course, it would greatly reduce rolling and sea motion generally.
It is too early as yet to say that the principle is useless.

PARANG
( " K n i f e " in t h e Malay language)

Designer: John Morwood

A p r i l , 1958

L.O.A.:
16 ft 6 in
Beam, h u l l :
2 ft 0 i n
L.W.L.:
15 ft 9 i n
Displacement (designed): 632 lbs
Beam, O . A . : 11 ft 6 i n
Sail Area:
160 sq ft
The same hull is used for this design as for TUAHINE
but, of course, it is
sunk lower in the water. This is the Indonesian design with simple box-like
floats on the end of the detachable outrigger beam. The floats have a square
stern and a fairly fine entrance. They are set on edge so that their wetted
surface can be adjusted to be the m i n i m u m .
T h e foils
The hydrofoifs lift the floats off" the water at speed. They have to be o f fairly
low aspect ratio to keep them from lifting up the whole craft. They also have
to be retractable and capable o f being used vertically for light winds.
44

Expected performance
PARANG'S
tank tests are not yet to hand but they should be very similar to
those of TUAHINE.
though possibly the foils will prevent the bow-burying
at speed. The resistance at full size w i l l be much less than that of
TUAHINE
and I believe it will only be about half due to the lesser weight.
Summary
PARANG
is an Indonesian type o f outrigger which should be extremely fast.
I f the hydrofoils were made a little longer and a retractable stern foil added,
the ideal sailing machine w o u l d almost be achieved. I n light winds, speeds
would be maximum due to the low wetted surface.
In medium w i n d strengths,
speeds would be m a x i m u m as then the craft w o u l d be riding on her main
hull w i t h only the lee hydrofoil keeping her upright. Finally in strong
winds, the craft w o u l d rise right out o f the water and sail on her hydrofoils.

46

CHAPTER IV
HYDROFOIL

CRAFT

by Robert B. H a r r i s

June, 1958

Introduction
Hydrofoils are lifting shapes used in water. They are similar i n action to
aerofoils. The term " l i f t i n g " may be thought of as describing the vertical
force produced by these shapes when advancing i n a fluid and it comes to us
from aerodynamics where the " l i f t " is the force exerted on an air craft by the
wings to raise it off the ground.
F r o m our introduction to the subject by John M o r w o o d i n A Y R S publication N o . 2, HYDROFOILS,
we have learned that these shapes are used for a
variety of tasks as centre-plates, rudders, leeboards, fin keels, stabilisers and,
I should like to add, propellors, impellors and turbines.
O f particular
interest in HYDROFOILS
is the very practical suggestion of using asymmetrical hydrofoils as centreplates i n single hulled sailing craft. I n the
writer's opinion, this offers unique possibilities.
The purpose of this paper will be to trace the history of hydrofoils f r o m
their earliest use in lifting boats off the water to present times. We shall
also look into some of the basic problems facing hydrofoil designers today
and the steps they are taking to solve them.
Advantages of h y d r o f o i l craft
Hydrofoils have been developed both for surface craft and for flying boats
and seaplanes. For surface craft, the advantages are:
1 The power needed to drive a hydrofoil craft at 40 knots is only half of that
needed to drive a conventional planing type hull of the same weight.
2 A hydrofoil craft can be designed to ride above the seas and weather and
be relatively little affected by them. This gives an easier, smoother ride
with bumps due to waves only one fifth as great. This means that the
hydrofoil craft can keep going at 30 knots while the planing hull has to
slow down to very low speeds.
For flying boats and seaplanes Guidoni, one o f the pioneers, gives the
following advantages for hydrofoils:
1 Economy in weight. Owing to the fact that floats are only used for static
support and do not strike the water until the speed has slowed down, the
structure can be lighter than in the ordinary case.
2 Landing a machine in a rough sea is easier. I n taking off, no bumps or
shocks of any k i n d are experienced, the machine behaving as i f it were
supplied with the most efficient of shock absorbers.
3 There is no possibility of the machine assuming a stalling position in the
water, as frequently happens with other floats. The machine has only a
very small angle of longitudinal inclination in the first stage. When the
boats are free of the water and only the foils are in the water, she can
easily be controlled by the elevators. N o lateral control is required i n
taking off as for an ordinary flying boat.
47

Early h y d r o f o i l systems
C o m t e de L a m b e r t
The first known instance of a hydrofoil supported craft was a catamaran
fitted with four transverse "hydroplanes" by the Comte de Lambert in 1897.
I t is reported that the craft rose clear o f the water. However, this was
probably due to the surfaces planing rather than foil l i f t ; i.e., they were
skimming on the top o f the water, being held up by the water pressure on their
under surfaces only. A hydrofoil depends for its lift on pressure diff"erences
between its upper and lower surfaces.
So long as the resultant o f the forces
created by these pressure differences is upward and big enough, the craft to
which they are applied will rise until these conditions change.
Forlanini
I n 1898, Forlanini developed a hydrofoil craft which really flew and we have a
record of the ladder type of foils used. Little is k n o w n about this craft
however.

Section through main foils

Fig. I

Forlanini's Craft^foil-borne

Crocco
Sparked by Forlanini's success, Crocco (also in Italy) followed soon after
with the development o f monoplane dihedral foils as shown in the drawing.
This craft apparently did 50 mph " M o n o p l a n e " here refers to the fact that
there was only a single wing below the surface as opposed to all the little
winglets used by Forlanini.

Fig. 2 Section through main

foil Crocco's Craft

The W r i g h t Brothers
By 1907, the Americans were beginning to sit up and take notice. The first
Americans of any repute to experiment with hydrofoil supported craft were
Wilbur and Orville Wright, who also used a catamaran.
Little is said o f their
trials except that because of low water in the M i a m i River in D a y t o n , Ohio,
where the trials were run, an early end was brought to their efforts. There
is no record of any further w o r k by these two.
48

Richardson
Captain H . C. Richardson, U.S.N. (retd.) followed in the U.S. in 1909 w i t h
the fitting of tandem bi-plane foils to a canoe. The canoe was towed, however, not self-propelled, and flew on the lower set of foils at 6 knots. Another
hydrofoil craft was later made by Captain Richardson i n collaboration with
N . White. This time, a dinghy was used w i t h foils which permitted incidence
control for stabilisation and manoeuvering.

Fig. 3 Captain Richardson U.S.N. Rtd. Dinghy w i t h incidence control foils 191 I

Guidoni
Guidoni, an Italian, during the period from 1908 to 1925 fitted hydrofoils
to seaplanes ranging in weight from 1,400 to 55,000 lbs and made some very
important strides in their development.
His primary objectives were (1) To
reduce the take-off resistance o f the seaplane; (2) A l l o w them to land at
higher sea states and at greater speeds and (3) To carry bigger pay loads.
Aircraft design and use were advancing rapidly at the time and it would
have been an important help both for military and commercial users to be
able to achieve this.

Fig. 4a Guidoni Seaplane,

foilborne

Guidoni also developed a hydrofoil section which, according to some

authorities, comes very close to being the best all round section at various
speeds, especially in regard to cavitation, at the same time having very good
lift and drag characteristics.
Guidoni's w o r k was later considered o f sufficient
value for a complete re-evaluation by the British and during the period
1930-1940, a model test programme was instituted by the National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics at the request of the U.S. Navy Bureau o f Aeronautics.
49

Dr. A l e x a n d e r G r a h a m Bell
in 1918, the labours of D r . Alexander Graham Bell and Casey Baldwin paid
off in the f o r m o f the H D - 4 . The craft had a gross weight o f 11,000 lbs,
took off at 20 mph w i t h a thrust of one ton and forty square feet o f foil area
and reached 60 mph, then only using four square feet o f foil area. T w o
Liberty aircraft engines o f 350 hp each were used. The ladder foils w i t h
dihedral were reported to have produced a lift-drag ratio of 8.5 at 30 knots, an
excellent mark even by today's standards which was got in spite o f the cumbersome configuration.

....

Fig. 5

The Bell HD4 1918.

Speed 60 knots

I t would be difficult to draw any conclusion on why the Bell H D - 4 did

not prompt further investigation and support by the U.S. Navy Department.
I t was probably due to the cumbersome nature of the configuration, the fact
that she porpoised i n a seaway and the fact that a war had just ended.
F r o m history, it would be quite safe to say that, i n spite o f the many remaining problems of foil-borne flight, such experimenters as Forlanini, Richardson,
Guidoni and Bell had remarkably good results. I f they had received government support or even substantial support from private quarters, hydrofoil
craft might have been commonplace today. G u i d o n i d i d receive considerable
governmental support and so was able to make substantial progress o f both a
practical and theoretical nature.
Principles of DesignHeight c o n t r o l
The first principle of hydrofoil craft design is to find an efficient method of
keeping the craft flying at a fixed height above the water surface. This can
be done manually as was tried by Captain Richardson but it is found that
the height maintenance is too delicate and needs too much attention for
prolonged use. The helmsman gets too tired too quickly to keep going.
Some automatic method must therefore be used and these fall into two types:
1 The foil area can be disposed vertically as i n the "ladder" method of
Forlanini, Guidoni or Bell. A t any given speed, height w i l l then be kept
constant because, i f the craft tries to sink, extra foil area w i l l enter the
50

water and vice versa. The same result w i l l be obtained by a single foil
placed at an angle of " d i h e d r a l " to the horizontal and placed to break the
surface at its outer end. The main advantages of dihedral, w i t h the foils
piercing the surface, lies in the fact that less foil area is needed at higher
speeds. Lift is a function of area and velocity. W i t h dihedral, the foils
will reduce i n area as the craft rises due to greater speed and hence lift.
Dihedral tends to give more stable flight i n a sea for, as the vessel heels,
more area w i l l be picked up on one side than the other, tending to right the
craft. Dihedral also reduces air entrainment which cannot be tolerated at
sea.
2 The foil can be placed horizontally but a mechanism is introduced which
gives it a greater "angle of attack" to the water flow, i f the craft rides too
low.
This can be done mechanically by "feelers" or "jockey arms" as in
the H o o k HYDROFIN
or electrically by impulses from a "feeler" setting
the angle of attack of the main foils. The "feeler" could also be placed
above the water and take its level by Radar or be placed below the surface
and take its level by an inverted depth recorder.
I f this were the only factor involved, the design of hydrofoil craft would
be very simple, so simple that there would be no trouble i n making these
efficient craft. The snag lies in what is called " A i r Entrainment."
A i r entrainment (ventilation)
This consists of air passing down the strut or foil to the low pressure area
on the upper surface of the foil, causing a sudden loss of lift. The foil drops
and may even get a negative angle of incidence, dragging the whole craft
forcibly into that water, a condition k n o w n as the "Crash D i v e . " This may
damage the craft and injure the occupants.
Some small fixed foil systems are liable to crash dive under certain conditions
and, when the seas become dangerous, they must slow down and continue
as ordinary boats. A following sea appears to be the worst for most types
due to the sudden changes of the angle of attack. This may result in a
crash dive i f the loading on the aft foil is about 4 0 % or more of the craft
weight because the large aft foil area has a very great effect on t r i m .
The crash dive can be avoided by having variable incidence on the forward
foils and this is found in many of the modern applications such as Von
Schertel, Baker (HIGHPOCKETS),
Grunberg and H o o k . Only the Carldesigned craft and BRAS
D'OR of Messrs. Saunders Roe are now using
fixed foils where, by careful design, the crash dive has apparently been eliminated. A great fore and aft length for the craft w i l l also eliminate the
chances of negative incidence.
Sweepback
This feature is the slope of the hydrofoil aft of the thwartships axis o f the
craft, from its root. One of its advantages which is not readily seen is that a
fore and aft section taken through a swept foil w i l l have less thickness relative
to the chord than a non-swept foil. The result is an increase of speed at which
cavitation occurs.
Another of the advantages of sweepback has to do w i t h air entrainment
(ventilation). A hydrofoil can be operated through many degrees o f change
51

of angle of attack but a surface piercing foil w i l l , at one critical point, suffer
air entrainment. When the flow thus breaks down, a hysteresis occurs which
means that the flow will not reseat itself until the angle of attack is reduced.
The point at which the flow reseats itself is the m i n i m u m angle o f attack at
which the foil may operate at a given speed. Fences on the foil are often
employed to delay ventilation but sweepback, combined with dihedral eliminate the need for the fences and further delays air entrainment. Sweepback
also aids in shedding debris which, i f otherwise allowed to remain on the
foil would cause extra drag and cavitation.
M o d e r n systems
By no means has it been decided that one hydrofoil configuration w i l l suit
all conditions, or that even one condition is best served by any one system.
The trend, however, has been to reduce the number of surfaces, and their
supports to the barest m i n i m u m in order (1) T o reduce take-off resistance;
(2) T o simplify construction and (3) T o facilitate retraction of the system above
water.
Tietjens
I n 1932, Dr. Otto Tietjens came up with what is probably the simplest configuration which can be visualised today, consisting o f one main dihedral
foil placed forward of the C.G. and a small stabilizing foil aft. 8 5 % o f
weight was on the forward foils and 15% on the aft ones.
V o n Schertel
H . F. Von Schertel of Germany tried two dihedral foils in tandem with
60% of weight on the forward foils and 4 0 % on the aft one. After the last
war, the Oerlikon Company in Switzerland proceeded to build a series o f
successful personal ferries to this system, the first of which paid for itself in
the first year of operation on Lake Maggiore in Italy. Later, they built the

27 ton 72 passenger craft, shown in the photograph, one o f which has now
carried 115,000 passengers since 1956. Most o f these craft had a design
speed of 40 knots.
The early Tietjens and Schertel craft failed to avoid the crash dive but, by
intensive research, a solution to this problem was found in putting streamlined
collars on the foils called "fences" and having some degree o f incidence
control.

Grunberg
In 1938, W. Grunberg of France patented the first automatic incidence
control system. The main foil is fixed and supports 8 0 % o f the weight in
flight.
The forward surfaces are planing surfaces which contour the sea,
and about which the craft trims. For example, when approaching a sea, the
forward surfaces lift and increase the angle of attack o f the craft and the

View from forward Hull

omitted for clarity

Fig. 7 Personal Ferry with Grunberg Hydrofoil system

main foil, thus tending to maintain the same angle o f attack in relation to the
wave slope. The disadvantage of the system appears to be that the planing
surfaces skip from sea to sea, i f the frequency is too high as in a short steep
chop. This could result in pounding of the skids and insufficient damping.
The problem of air entrainment remains.

The H o o k

Hydrofin

For hydrofoil craft without air wings, Christopher Hook's

HYDROFIN
comes as near to solving the problems of heave and trim as has yet been
devised. H o o k first thought o f his system in 1941.
I n the HYDROFIN,
a pair of "Jockey arms" protrude forward o f the craft,
sense the oncoming seas and relate the message to the main "swept-wing"
horizontal submerged foils. The jockey arms act as levers and are linked
53

The Hook

HtDROFIN

directly to the main foils, thus changing the angle o f attack. There is also
provision for altering the ratio o f the linkage so that the craft may fly at
various altitudes. Since the link pivot positions may be altered separately,
port and starboard, the helmsman may control the angle of bank in a turn.
Hook's HYDROFIN
greatly reduces surface losses and avoids the crash
dive (though air entrainment can still occur w i t h loss o f lift and a temporarily
greater resistance till the air is thrown clear). Against these advantages must
be placed the cumbersome and vulnerable jockey arms. I t would seem
quite possible that, i f the jockey arms were replaced with electronic wave
profilers set high over the water as from a bowsprit, the major disadvantages
of Hook's basically excellent system w o u l d be eliminated.

Fig. 8

Miami Shipbuilding s j scale LCVP

using the Hook system

54

Fig. 9

Miami Shipbuilding's full scale L C V P

using the Hook system

The HYDROFIN
foils can be easily retracted for cleaning. I t is very
important to keep the foils smooth because slight surface imperfections can
cause cavitation and loss of lift. Retraction also means that the craft may
be hauled on conventional marine railways, or the boat may be beached,
provided the propellor and strut retract also.
Hook's untiring efforts in South Africa and Cowes w i l l never be forgotten
as he alone demonstrated the main advantage of the variable incidence
hydrofoil supported craft. However, he was unsuccessful in finding interest
in Europe and decided to try in the United States.
After entering the HYDROFIN
in the New Y o r k Boat Show in 1948,
valuable contacts with government officials were made. I n due course
the M i a m i Shipbuilding Company built a small HYDROFIN
landing craft
for load analysis and performance evaluation by the U.S. Navy. By 1957, a
much larger craft had been built.
The H o o k HYDROFIN
is a near answer to the problem o f hydrofoil
craft in most circumstances of wind and sea but there still remains the desire
for simplicity, foolproofness, low maintenance, light weight and better
retraction quality.
T h e Baker craft
Gordon Baker, in the US during this time had been developing hydrofoil
craft with surface piercing foils of a dihedral greater than 30. One o f his
first was a hydrofoil sailing craft. The system was comprised of two surface
piercing V foils forward of the C G and a single V foil aft. Once up on the
foils, the sailboat hydrofoil performed well but, as soon as the w i n d fell off
or it had to tack, she could come down off the foils. The same was true o f a
later saihng hydrofoil o f Baker design employing two sets of ladder foils
set athwartships as before with a set of V ' d ladder foils aft. The C G is

Fig. 11

Baker Hydrofoil boat HIGH

55

POCKtJS

somewhat aft o f the main foils. This craft reached 30 mph, and it is interesting
to note that she used full length battens i n her sails and had a pivoting main
mast. The US Navy footed the bill for this craft but were ultimately much
more interested i n Baker's power hydrofoil craft HIGHPOCKETS.
This
craft consisted o f four sets o f surface piercing V foils, t w o sets forward and
two sets aft w i t h 5 0 % o f the load on each pair. G o o d L / D ratios were
obtained in the cruising range, an important factor for economical considerations.
Gilruth
R. G i l r u t h and Bill Carl, also o f the US and o f the N A C A started experimenting with foils in 1938. They successfully flew a catamaran hydrofoil
sailing craft which took off at 5 knots and cruised at 12 knots. The main
foil had an aspect ratio o f 11 : 1, a 12 ft span, a 1 ft chord and the remarkable
L / D ratio o f 25 : 1. The foil section was one o f big camber for high lift

Fig. 11

Gilruth hydrofoil catamaran sailing craft, foil-borne

36

at low speed, like N A C A 65-506. Gilruth's w o r k later formed the basis for
high speed configuration proposals to the Office o f Naval Research, which
resulted in the first Navy contract in 1947 for research on hydrofoils.
The C a r l hydrofoils
W i l l i a m P. Carl, President o f Dynamic Developments Inc., following his
work with G i l r u t h , took the studies o f hydrofoil craft one stage further w i t h
the X C H 4 . This craft has flown well over 65 knots, and according to M r .
Carl, owes its success to its fixed foil system. Longitudinal dynamic stability
is obtained from proper adjustment of foil areas and their proper location i n
relation to the C G . Transverse stability and area control are obtained from
surface breaking dihedral and spacing of the main foils. Reduction o f air
entrainment and retardation of cavitation are due to sweepback o f the foils.
Water propeller shafts are abolished by using air propellers and there are
only three struts in the water, one for each set of foils.

Fig. 12 Tlie Carl XCH4in sling

Fig. 13 The XCH4foil-borne 60 knots

The X C H 4 is 53 ft long. The manner in which the hull tapers to a fine

stern is part of the design concept of the craft. T h i n k o f it, i f you w i l l , as
the main payload being supported by the main foils w i t h a strut extending
aft to support a small stabilizing aft foil. The C G of the craft is slightly aft
of the centre of pressure of the main foils. The fine stern is important in
reducing buoyant forces which might otherwise produce a negative angle o f
attack on the main foils. The X C H 4 has excellent heave and t r i m characteristics. For example, in a 3 to 4 ft sea, one may stand on one foot while
travelling at 50 to 55 miles per hour. The vertical acceleration of the X C H 4
when foil borne is only l / 5 t h o f that of a conventional hull alone. It might
seem that as each o f the steps o f the " L a d d e r " came out of the water, there
would be a bump. This does not occur because, with dihedral, the upper
foil will partially enter or leave the water before the foil immediately beneath
it enters or leaves the interface.
It may be possible to foresee still another design concept in such a craft
as the X C H 4 . This is, that at the speeds when the hydrofoils might otherwise
become unstable or commence to lose lift through cavitation, the speed is
great enough to cause a partial transfer of the weight to the wings. The stub
wings of the X C H 4 , which act as foil supports could thus be designed to
contribute stability and lift even to surface craft. This is not as far-fetched
57

Fig. 14 Grumman Aircraft Engineering

Corp's Aluminium 15 ft Runabout fitted
with Cowl Sea Wings

Fig. 15 Grummon 15ft Aluminium Runabout, foil-borne

as it rnighit at first seem, considering that a hydrofoil boat is actually a l o w flying machine, getting its lift from the foils instead o f air wings. In fact.
Bill Carl has patented the name SEA WINGS for his hydrofoils.
However, as M r . Carl points out, there comes a point where one should
leave the water and fly. He believes that the 60 to 70 knot range w i l l be
sufficient for surface craft. His latest hydrofoil system will permit the
construction of vessels o f from two to three thousand tons. This system is
composed of two main foils set forward of the C G . These foils are swept
back and all surfaces are lifting with the exception of the main support strut.
Attached to each is a small t r i m m i n g tab which is hand controlled and w i l l
allow a slight adjustment of flight attitude, although this is not necessary f o r
stable flight. The tail foil is submerged and is set as far from the main foils
as the vehicle will permit. Some adjustment may be made to it but not in
flight.
On the latest model, it is a swept back, symmetrical foil designed t o
carry about 15% o f the total load.
Gibbs and Cox
Gibbs and Cox, Naval Architects in the US, during the early 1950's, developed
an electrical impulse variable incidence controlled hydrofoil power craft. I n
this system, feelers out in front of the foils sense the water level electrically
and pass the information to the main foil incidence control system which
alters the angle of attack of the foils accordingly. A more recent craft has

Fig. 16 Gibbs and Cox incidence

controlled boat (1953) foil-borne

Fig. 17 Gibbs and Cox incidence

controlled boat (1957) foil-borne

58

a much more "sophisticated" electrical impulse system and is reported to be

highly successful.
It is, in fact, an electrical version of the H o o k system and a
vast improvement.
Conclusion
The modern hydrofoil craft are highly successful whether Gibbs and Cox's
latest craft which is an improvement on the H o o k system or the fixed, selftrimming systems like Grunberg, Tietjens or the latest Schertel, Sachsenberg
system or SUPRAMAR
craft.
However, it is particularly important to note that with a carefully designed
and refined fixed system, the same required stabihty about all three axes is
assured without the costly and difficult to maintain variable incidence controlled systems. W i t h a simple, safe, fixed system, capable of high speeds,
designers can now devote much needed attention to propulsion problems,
new hull design concepts, large ship application and eventually large scale
production for military, commercial and private use.
Apologies
We wish to apologise i f we have neglected to mention anyone who has
developed and tested a hydrofoil system and would greatly appreciate hearing
from any such persons or group.
Acknowledgements
To Henry B. Suydam of the PreHminary Design Dept., G r u m m a n Aircraft
Engineering Corp. and W i l l i a m P. Carl, Pres. of Dynamic Developments Inc.,
for their valuable help in the preparation of this paper.
Thanks
Sincere thanks to Sally Spiegel for her patient drafts of this paper.
References
1 See data on Denney-Brown Ship Stabilisers or Sperry Co.
2 " A n Appraisal of Hydrofoil Supported Craft" by T. M . Buermann, L t .
Cdr. P. Leehey, U.S.N., and Cdr. J. J. Stilwell, U.S.N. f r o m the Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineer's Transactions, V o l . 61.
3 "Progress in Hydrofoils" by Harvey B. Atkinson, Jr., a paper presented to
the Head of the Department of English, History and Government of the
U.S. Naval Academy, Feb. 1957.
4 " H y d r o f o i l s , " a bi-monthly of the Amateur Yacht Research Society,
edited by John M o r w o o d , Woodacres, Hythe, Kent, England.
5 "Boats on Stilts," by Christopher H o o k , V o l . 3, N o . 33, issue o f "The New
Scientist"a British production.
6 "Note on the Possibility of Fitting Hydrofoils to a Flying Boat," Coombes,
L . P. and Davies, E. T. J., N o v . 1937. R . A . E . 'Farnborough,' England,
Report N o . B . A . 1440.
7 "The Hydrofoil, its Development and Application to Water Based A i r c r a f t , "
by Henry Suydam and W i l l i a m P. Carl.
8 Office of Naval Research ReviewsAugust, 1957.
59

CHAPTER V
THE

DESIGN OF HYDROFOILS

by John Morwood

1958

Hydrofoils are the most exciting prospect for the further advancement o f
sailing and it is hoped that several people will be trying them out this year i n
one form or another. I t is therefore w o r t h while to give the main points i n
the design of surface piercing foils as a guide and i n the hope that improvements will be forthcoming.
The section
A hydrofoil would ordinarily be given an aerofoil section were it not for the
facts o f (1) Cavitation, (2) A i r entry and (3) I t has to pierce the surface.
1. Cavitation occurs when the lessened pressure over the upper surface
of the foil becomes less than that of the vapour density o f water. When
this happens, the water flow over the surface is broken by a layer o f water
vapour which appears like a bubble along the foil and the lift falls off.
2. Air entry occurs when air gets over the upper surface of the foil and is
held there by the negative pressure.
3. A sharp entry is better for cutting the surface o f the water than a
rounded entry.
The upper surface
To avoid cavitation and air entry, the upper surface should be shaped so
that there are no places where the pressure is very low, such as occurs w i t h
aerofoils at the leading edge. This is best achieved by having the upper
surface the arc of a circle. The pressure drop on the upper surface is then
more or less the same all over the area.
The lower surface
A flat lower surface is, apparently, quite satisfactory and is the easiest to make.
The combination of a flat lower surface and an arc o f a circle for the upper
surface makes up what is called an " O g i v a l " section and is that usually used
for surface-piercing hydrofoils with the modification as in the next paragraph.
The e n t r y
A n ogival section will have an even and low pressure drop over its upper
surface to prevent cavitation and it has a sharp entry to cut the water. H o w ever, i f one bisects the angle of entry o f such a foil section o f a thickness
ratio o f 12 : 1, one finds that the angle is about 15 from the lower flat surface
and this would have to be the angle o f attack of the water, i f it were not to
cause a downward pressure on the fore part of the upper surface. N o w , for
the best ratio of lift to drag, one wants an angle o f attack o f about 5 and this
can be achieved by raising the lower surface by l/60th o f the chord at the
fore end. The line bisecting the leading angle of the section will then be 5
and there will be no downward pressure on the upper surface. The final
section is shown in the drawing.
60

Thickness
Hydrofoils of thickness to chord ratio of 12 : 1 are ordinarily used, though
1 0 : 1 has been suggested. The thicker foils w i l l give more lift and therefore
might get the craft off the water more quickly. But, they will also produce
more drag for the same speed and cavitate sooner. A ratio o f 10 : 1 might
prove better for sailing craft which are not so likely to reach very high speeds.
The plan f o r m
The plan form o f surface piercing foils must depend on three factors:
1 Aspect Ratio.
2 The prevention of air entry.
3 Easy sea motion.
Aspect r a t i o
This is the ratio of the span o f the hydrofoil to the average chord. I n essence,
it is a measure of the ratio of the lift o f the foil to the loss o f lift at the free
wing end or ends.
Ed.:

See Edmond Bruce's article p. 185

A i r entry
This condition, technically called "air entrainment" occurs when the upper
surface o f the foil becomes covered w i t h air which has got down from the
surface. I t is to be distinguished from " c a v i t a t i o n , " already described.
When air entry occurs, the lift falls off possibly to as little as one quarter
of what it was before; that side drops and may achieve a negative angle o f
incidence and the craft may " f l y " straight into the water amid showers o f
plywood and a tremendous splash. I t is a condition to avoid.
Methods of Prevention
1. Messrs. Saunders Roe and others used to believe that air got to the upper
surface of the foil by suction from the surface, and to prevent this, placed
streamlined fillets (fences) across the foils. These were successful in preventing
the "Crash dive" described above and so seemed to substantiate the theory.
However, it now appears that these fillets can be extremely small and still
work so, to my way of thinking, their function is to act as points from which
the trapped air can escape when it has been taken down.
2. I t is my belief that, with surface-piercing foils, there is no way o f preventing air from covering the upper surface when it breaks through a wave.
One's objective, therefore, must be to minimise the drop due to the loss o f
lift and to get the air off the foil as quickly as possible. I believe that both
these things can be achieved by the use o f a triangular plan f o r m for the foil.
This shape will only drop i n proportion to the square root o f the loss of lift
of the foil as compared to a drop of far greater extent from a rectangular
61

foil and both the sweepback; o f the trailing edge and the broadening shape
will throw the air away quickly. I also feel that the greater waterline length
of the triangular plan form will have fewer surface losses. These are quite
severe and have possibly been the cause of the difficulty which experimenters
find in getting off the surface.
Easy sea m o t i o n
When a surface-piercing foil meets a wave, extra area is immediately brought
into use and, because this area has had to be used to get the craft up in the
first place, it must be lifting. Therefore, the craft will get a push up. This
push w i l l be m i l d or severe depending on the plan shape of the foil. T o be
most satisfactory, the plan shape has to be almost rectangular. A triangular
plan form such as I suggest will produce a blow upwards from a wave. This
might not be disagreeable but i f it were, hinging the foil at its forward end
and having a spring at the after end will lessen the blow, both by taking it on
the spring but also by lessening the angle of attack of the foil. Indeed, such
a spring would also increase the angle o f incidence when the lift suddenly
fell off with air entrainment and, as shown by Christopher H o o k w i t h the
HYDROFIN,
this will convert a "Crash" into a slight limp. The sprung
foil may be avoided by increasing the angle of dihedral to 60' but this entails
a reduction o f lift and therefore an increase in size of the foils.
Incidence c o n t r o l
It is to be noted that the sprung foil, as suggested here w i t h surface piercing
foils, w i l l be as effective as either the H o o k system w i t h cumbersome "feelers"
or electronic incidence control. The "Crash dive" cannot occur and the
incidence control will be good. Hydrofoils, apparently, do not " s t a l l " and
the flow will reseat itself i f air entrainment occurs with an increased angle o f
attack, though, as stated by Bob Harris, theoretically, one should reduce
this.
Dihedral
The most satisfactory angle o f dihedral for lifting foils is about 40.
own experiments showed that 30' was too flat for a model.

My

Foil area
The Bell " H y d r o d o m e " had hydrofoils which developed 70 lbs lift per square
foot of area at 10 mph.* These foils were nearly horizontal and the vertical
lift o f more sloping foils could well be taken as the cosine of the dihedral
angle. For instance, foils at 40 o f dihedral w o u l d develop about 45 lbs of
of vertical lift per square foot o f area at 10 m p h .
Summary
Hydrofoils should be a simple ogival section with the fore edge raised by
l/60th of the chord. The thickness/chord ratio should be 1 2 : 1 or 10 : 1.
A triangular plan form with a root chord to span ratio o f 1: I J may give a
good aspect ratio, throw air clear and, i f the after edge is sprung, give an
easy sea motion. A t 40 o f dihedral, the vertical lift should be 45 lbs per
square foot at 10 knots.
* This figure does not agree with that o" 280 lbs as given on p. 17
62

PARALLEL

FOILS

Surface piercing foils with dihedral have an inefficiency. This is the leeward
acting force of the weather foil which has to be neutralised by the lee f o i l .
This inefficiency has to be taken by a motor driven hydrofoil-borne boat but a
sailing craft which has a side force from its sails may be able to overcome it.

The f o r w a r d foils
A sailing hydrofoil craft could have its two forward foils sloping upwards to
lee as in the drawing. The angle from the horizontal will then both give the
extra foil area which is wanted when a foil is pushed further into the water
and it will absorb the side force of the sails on the weather side as well as to lee.
The result of this improved efficiency may be that the angle of slope of the
foils could be reduced with a greater lift to drag ratio.
The stern
Ideally, one
foils. This
craft which

foil
would want the stern foil also to slope up to lee as w i t h the main
is certainly possible as shown by the earlier Baker hydrofoil
has been shown, but it needs appropriate positioning of the

centre of gravity to absorb the forward capsizing moment of the sails. A n

inverted T stern foil might be best because it can take the forward capsizing
moment of the sails by a negative angle of incidence. This is also an i n efficiency when it occurs. A method o f having a retractable stern T foil is
shown i n the figure.
The mechanism
To get the foils to slope up to lee on each tack, a mechanism must be used o f
which there are two kinds:
1 The foils can be hinged at their tops so that they flap over on each tack.
This system was invented (and patented) by Commander Fawcett. I t
could only be worked w i t h symmetrical foils. The craft would have to
come off the foils to put about or gybe.
63

Cd F<ett's flap loils

"^^giyy^T

tsfmrnetrical 1

System tor asymmetrical parallel '

turnffig wires

System far manual turning ot foil

2 The foils could be fitted to a vertical axle which worked on bearings at the
ends of the outrigger. These foils w o u l d have to be changed for each tack
by hand but an asymmetrical foil could be used w i t h a higher lift to drag
ratio. I t is possible that the craft might not need to come off the foils to
put about or gybe.

HYDROFOIL SAILING

CRAFT

The delightful drawing by N . G . A . Pearce shows what I believe to be the

ideal hydrofoil sailing craft with all parts in the water getting the greatest
possible efficiency.
The hull
The hull has some stability in itself, though it w o u l d be on the narrow side.
Outrigged buoyancy would not be necessary, therefore. The hydrofoils
would give a little buoyant stability in light winds or at moorings. Probably
all that was wanted.
The foils
A l l three foils would slope up to leeward, accurately to take the combined
side force of the sails and the weight of the craft. Thus, they would be
absolutely right for the w o r k they are to do. Adjustment of the angle of
dihedral i n flight might, however, be needed so that the lesser side force w i t h
a reaching wind could be met by a lessened angle. Each foil could be turned
about a vertical axle for putting about.
Sailing
As I see it, the craft would be got on her foils w i t h a beam w i n d . The foils
would be set at an angle of dihedral of about 30 and all made to slope up to
leeward with them all aligned exactly fore and aft. The angle o f leeway
would thus make up their angle o f attack.
As the craft gathered way, she w o u l d rise on her foils and the apparent
wind would go forward, so that the sails w o u l d have to be close hauled,
even with a beam wind. The angle of dihedral w o u l d then be increased to
35 or 40.
64

P u t t i n g about
For this manoeuvre, the actions would be as follows:
1 Put the weather foil on the other tack by twisting it around aft. I t w o u l d
act as a slight brake when aft but would still be lifting. When turned
right round, it would have to be given a slight angle to the water flow and
not placed fore and aft like the lee foil.
2 The stern foil would then be twisted around and the craft would swing
quickly through the wind.
3 Before the sails filled on the other tack, the weather foil might need to be
given a slight "toe-in" to give it an angle of attack to the water flow.
4 As soon as the sails fill, the foil which is now to weather would be twisted
to the other tack, the angles of attack of all the foils would be adjusted
and the craft would be sailing.
Gybing
It might be thought that gybing would need some especial handling technique
1 cannot think, however, that it would be at all different from coming about.
The craft would be sailing somewhat faster than the windspeed when the real
wind was on the quarter and. during the gybe, the sail would be weathercocking to windward.
Steering
Twisting the stern foil as drawn, would merely give a greater or lesser angle
of attack to the water flow with an alteration in longitudinal t r i m . This
might be adequate for steering but I rather doubt it. I believe that to steer
with such a foil, the angle of dihedral would need to be altered rather than
the angle of attack. Thus, by making the foil more vertical, the stern would
sink slightly and an increased force would be produced to weather. The
65

extra force would come from the more sideways slope of the angle o f force
on the foil. This action would also increase the angle o f attack on the f o i l .
The sail r i g
A t the high speeds at which a hydrofoil craft would go, a good thrust t o
side force ratio o f the rig seems to me to be more valuable than sheer sail
area. I t would also be necessary to have the rig easy to handle. 1 therefore
feel that a simple fully battened mainsail (without j i b ) erected in the Ice
Yacht manner would be best. The mast would need to be slightly raked aft.

ROCK A N D ROLL
by Julian A l l e n

BOATS

A man, standing at the end of a punt, can thrust a paddle straight down i n t o
the water; and it goes straight down. Or, he can thrust it down at a slight
slant away from h i m ; and the paddle slides away as well as downwards,
pulling his hands after i t . The greater the slant, the farther and faster does
the paddle gain distance. This is shown diagrammatically in the three
drawings on the left of Fig. 1.
A better shape for the purpose would be a blade mounted at right angles
to the shaft as in the middle drawing o f Fig. 1. Owing to the improved
aspect ratio, it would develop a stronger pull.

0
I\

Fig. I

These fixed types of hydrofoil use only the down thrust as a working stroke.
In order to make the uplift o f the vane also effective, all that is needed is t o
make the vane swing to the desired angle automatically by pivoting it just
forward of the centre of pressure and providing suitable stops as on the right
of Fig. 1.
This idea inspired my first attempt at flap-vane propulsion. I chose an
angle of setting of the vanes which was rather flat to give ample horizontal
distance.
A rocker beam was mounted on a twin hulled craft to see-saw transversely.
This lifted and depressed the vanes attached to its ends by vertical struts when
the man-power engine started " m a r k i n g t i m e " on the treadles on each side
of the fulcrum. Every d-own-stroke as well as every up-stroke was a w o r k i n g
stroke. I t was as i f the man with his t w o legs was a twin cylinder steam engine
in which each cylinder was double acting.
The thing worked but very slowly and with great turbulence and wasted
effort. This was because the vanes were set to work at an angle o f 20 each
66

ROCK/NG
tU

VIEW

BOAT

4V
7'D'

.nuW

cxtt lur

radar Att-i iVi'-sVfa

IWL-

ttctlon

END VIEW

FUP VNt PUNE

plan
I

1. Co'-Vo'
li'o'.z". Is*
s'o'.ii'' V
leV'i-. V
i'c'.j". V

FLAP VAIIE

41/

EIID;VIEW

Fig. 2

side of the horizontal to gain the long forward component.

I t was quite
obvious that the vanes stalled and never worked to their best efficiency.
Still, the craft went out and came back under its one man power.
I n the next craft, weight and complications were saved by using a single
float with a fixed transverse beam; and by making the whole craft rock to
work the vanes. Small balancing floats near the beam ends saved capsizing.
The idea of long gliding strokes was abandoned and the forward propulsion
came from the vanes set for an angle o f 45. I t was obvious that propulsive
eff'ort must come from direct lift in a horizontal direction and not from a
slight gliding angle. The glider was thus metamorphosed into a propeller.
This " R o l l Boat" was a lot better in efficiency than the previous one but
the outrigged vanes were always getting foul of mooring ropes so, to overcome
this, I made a new craft to rock fore and aft. The single oscillating beam
projecting straight forwards rigid with the boat, carried a single vane. I t was
easy to see where it was heading and, because it was pivoted to the bow, it
could be swung laterally for steering.

Conclusions
1 The vanes must be weighted to have neutral buoyancy.
2 The vane should have a high aspect ratio to reduce the time and distance
lost during the flip over. Very narrow vanes arranged as a biplane are
worth trying.
3 The vanes may be regarded as the blades o f a propellor making fractional
revolutions, first one way and then the other. Conceived as a propellor,
the angle o f incidence should be a lot finer than 45, say 15. Four wood
screws positioned to butt against the metal ends, shown in the drawing,
would give a simple means of adjustment.
67

4 A harmony must be sought between the oscillation period of the boat and
the resistance to oscillation o f the vanes. I f the vanes are too big or have
too much pitch, the rocking motion lacks an even rhythm.
5 As the vanes use the same leading edge and opposite striking surfaces
alternativety on each stroke, they must be symmetrical and of course,
streamlined.

68

CHAPTER VI
FUN,

15ft. T R I M A R A N

by Donald Robertson

February, 1960

FUN, a 15 ft trimaran, was the result o f some experiments which I had made
with model sailing boats. I had never built a boat before but I regarded her
as a full sized model that would carry me and allow it to be sailed to the best
advantage.
The boat was built primarily to carry out experiments with different types
of rig. These w i l l be described i n a later publication, but a number o f other
experiments were made on the hull itself.
The hull had an overall length o f 15 ft with a beam of 3 ft 6 i n . I t was
fully decked but had a small watertight cockpit for the helmsman's feet.
Needless to say it was very unstable but there were two hollow seats which
could be extended outwards on outriggers. These provided buoyancy when
the boat heeled and a seat to sit her out. I t required considerable agility
to keep her upright but she sailed quite well. The rudder was controlled by a
boom mounted across the boat pivoted at the centre and connected to the
rudder head by a push pull shaft. This arrangement was used by Lew
Whitman, the American canoe champion, and I found the fore and aft
movement of the helm to luff up or bear away to be quite natural.
The boat had a large alloy centreboard but 1 tried a special wooden centreboard with a metal tip which could be turned, like a very deep rudder, from a
lever in the cockpit (See Fig. 1). The object was to keep the boat upright
by using the centreboard as a pivot and the tip as a lever as shown i n the
diagram. 1 tried it twice but found that although the boat when running
could be rocked from side to side by moving the lever, the time when it was
most required to keep the boat upright, i.e., when close hauled, it seemed
to have little effect. I t was realised afterwards that a movable fin of this type
is only effective when moving at relatively high speed through the water.
Incidentally I found also that I had not enough hands to control it and sail
the boat! On running ashore and bending it, the problem arose as to how to
sail home!

^ ut^re, hoa^d -forte

Fig. I

69

T R I M A R A N CONVERSION

UNIT

Many people are interested in converting a Canadian canoe or a similar tender

craft into a sailing trimaran and this would undoubtedly produce a cheap
sailing craft.
Julian Allen sends us this drawing o f one such conversion unit, which is
self explanatory. Each cross beam is hinged at the gunwale and the floatleeboard can be retracted out o f the water when not wanted or for beaching.
The cross beams can be attached together rigidly when sailing.

This shape of float might be suitable for many boats but floats like those o f
the PARANG
design, described in N o . 18 would be more suitable for others
and retractable hydrofoils would suit still more types. The rule here is that
the greater the stability i n the main hull, the greater should the float become
like a hydrofoil and less like a float. The PARANG
hull needs floats such
as are i n the design, whereas a converted Montague whaler would be more
happy with hydrofoil stabilisers.
This whole matter is almost an unexplored field and members would be
well rewarded by studying i t . I feel sure that the light cruising yacht o f the
future w i l l be like a whaler w i t h a transom and stabilised by hydrofoils.
70

CEREBUS
36 Foot T r i m a r a n Design
by W i l l i a m H. Baur

October, 1959

Beam O . A .
20 ft
L.O.A.
36 ft
Beam main hull W . L . 2.5 ft
L.W.L.
32 ft
3,000-4,000 lb
Sail area 400-800 sq ft (Lapwing rig) Displacement
This is a first completed attempt at a yacht design and an excellent craft she
is, in my opinion. The construction is to be fibreglass and foam sandwich
throughout with government surplus a l u m i n i u m aircraft wing tanks as floats,
though sailing stability will be from hydrofoils.

Main hull
The length-beam ratio is not what was desired but this is restricted by financial
limitations as regards length and by accommodation considerations as regards
beam. The accommodation plan provides for two long people, one short
one and, if necessary, one very short one. There is a small chart table and
bookshelves at standing height to port between the galley and the forward
berth and there is full headroom for a 6 foot man. The racy-looking "doghouse" structure is a result, not o f the influence of finny cars but o f providing
fully-sheltered louvered ventilation ports to either side of the companionway
entrance.

The floats and foils

Primary stabilisation when underway w i l l be from the hydrofoils rather than
the floats. Also, since the floats are themselves tanks, a windward water
ballast system will be provided for heavy weather where tacking is unnecessary.
Provision will be made for experiments with other hydrofoil configuration.
The r i g
This is the " L a p w i n g " rig as devised by H . G . Hasler. Thelongunstayed mast
presents something of a problem which is believed can be solved by the use o f
slightly conical extrusions, an outer shell and an inner skin separated by
struts and filled between with a dense foam plastic.
A u x i l i a r y power
This is a lightweight 30 hp motor with an outboard drive which tilts up out
of water when not in use, removing a large drag source.
Design procedure
William Baur, being an amateur designer, devised his own design method
and, as this may be of interest to other amateurs, an outline o f it will be given.
The stages are as follows:
1 A n overall stage, working out the configuration to produce an aesthetically
pleasing form with an adequate accommodation plan.
2 The final drawing from stage 1 was traced onto graph paper and weight
and displacement estimates were made by a counting of square procedure
much as was described in the design method of A Y R S publication N o . 1.
3 The centre o f buoyancy was then found by a sum o f forces times their
distances from a reference point procedure.
4 A curve of areas was then drawn and, as it was lopsided, it was smoothed
keeping the total buoyancy and the centre of buoyancy the same.
5 Using the curve of areas so found, the whole craft was designed with boxlike sections which gave an approximate L W L and profile.
6 Finally, the box sections were rounded keeping the areas about the same
and the lines were faired.
72

AVOCET
Length
Overall beam

February, 1960
18 ft
12 ft

Sail area
120 sq ft
Weight (less rig) 210 lbs
Weight o f rig

O w n e r , Designer & B u i l d e r

50 lbs

Prof. Sir M a r t i n Ryle.

Basic design
I n this design both heeling forces and side force are countered by a floathydrofoil combination at either end o f a wing which also provides accommodation for the crew. Crew weight can thus be used to full advantage.
Of the various lift-producing hydrofoil systems, surface-piercing foils inclined
inwards seemed to provide the simplest self-stabilizing arrangement, as well
as eliminating the need for a centreboard. The most serious difficulty i n their
use, however, is to prevent air being sucked down the upper surface. This
may be demonstrated i n a striking manner by holding a paddle over the side
at a speed of about 10 knots. W i t h the paddle vertical very considerable

Martin Ryle's

AVOCET

side forces can be produced as the angle of incidence is increased (and o f

course free vertical centreboards are used in the SHEARWATER
and other
catamarans). If, however, the paddle is held outboard at about 45 to the
vertical, then as the angle of incidence is increased to obtain a comparable
73

lift, the water flow suddenly breaks away from the leading edge and the lift
practically vanishes.
To avoid this difficulty the foils in A K O C f T emerge through the centreUne
at the front of the floats, where the water-flow should prevent a low pressure
area developing.
By saihng the boat with an angle o f heel of about \0\o that the lee float
is immersed about 4 in, air entrainment is prevented, while the wave-drag from
the immersed float is still small; with a crew of two the weather foil is then
just clear of the water, and asymmetrical hydrofoils may therefore be used.
By adopting an effective angle of incidence o f about 9, the lift per square
foot is about three times as great as that of a conventional centreboard, and
at speeds greater than about 10 knots, strong stabilizing forces are provided
by the relatively small foil area.
Construction
I n a trimaran the main hull operates at constant immersion (until appreciable
overall lift is provided by the foils), but the requirements otherwise differ
little from those of a catamaran. Because o f its continued success a
SHEARWATER hull was adopted, and an 18 ft one was specially moulded by Prouts
with 3 in greater depth than normal. Bulkheads and strengthening frames
were built at either end of the wing opening, and the bow and stern sections
were decked with \n ply. Large hatches were left in these for dry storage o f
gear (one could almost sleep in the forward compartment!).
By stepping the mast on the wing structure, all the main sailing forces
are applied direct to the wing (horizontal and vertical foil forces, crew weight

AvOCET

and mainstay tension). The attachment of wing to hull therefore presents

no problem; forestay and sheet forces simply tend to keep them together.
The leading edge o f the wing consists of a main spar (two 2 in x 1 i n spruce)
and a 1 | in x 1 in spruce leading edge, all three surfaces being covered with
3/16 in ply to make a very rigid box girder. The under surface is extended
aft with J in ply to f o r m the wing deck to a rear spar (two 2 i n x I in spruce
with 3/16 in ply on outside).
74

The central section is left open to the main hull, and since this is
unencumbered with a C B case provides comfortable leg-room.
The wing is attached w i t h two bolts at the leading edge, two at the main
spar and four at the rear spar. When trailing, the hull is carried upside down
with the mast and boom on a r o o f rack, the wing on a small (12 ft dinghy)
trailer.
Floats
The floats are triangular in section, the angle increasing f r o m 75 at the bow
to 90 at the stern. When deeply immersed the underwater section is slightly
asymmetrical, the outer surface being flatter than the inner, so that the bow
is inclined outwards by 3 i n .
The J in ply is screwed and glued to a laminated stem and keel stringer;
the deck, also o f j in ply, continues the upper surface o f the leading edge.
The float and outer half of the leading edge provide a sealed buoyancy o f
about 400 lbs each side. The inboard half o f the leading edge is used for
stowage.
Foils
These are retractable through " C B cases" mounted against the outer skin o f
the floats. They make an angle o f 55 to the horizontal when the boat is
upright, but with the normal angle o f heel this is reduced to 45. They have a
chord of 12 in and maximum thickness o f J i n w i t h the section described on
page 61.
The angle of attack o f the flat surface measured along a waterline is 7,
giving an effective angle o f incidence of about 9.
A Swift catamaran r i g has been used, with sail area o f 120 sq ft. A transverse tiller mounted on the rear spar o f the wing operates the rudder w i t h
wires passing outside the mainsheet track. This arrangement has the advantage that it does not project into the cockpit and no tiller extension is needed,
wherever the helmsman sits.
Performance
When first launched, AVOCET
had strong weather helm, which almost
prevented her from sailing to windward, but by reducing the rake o f the mast,
to bring the sail plan forward by about 8 i n , her performance was completely
transformed. She is obviously fast, exceedingly stable and goes about easily;
even at speed she can be steered with one finger. N o extensive speed trials
have been possible this season and the only tests with TRITON*
were before
the rig of either boat was moved forward. A few days were however spent
in comparison with Peter Ward's SHEARWATER
III: during most of this
time winds were light, and A VOCET was definitely slower on all points of
sailing. I n stronger winds the difference did not appear to be so great but
unfortunately on the two days when there was as much wind as
AVOCET
needed the SHEARWATER
was not available for trials. On these two days
the value of foil stabilizers really became apparent; as long as the lee float
was allowed to remain deeply immersed (for example w i t h insufficient sitting* A trimaran made by D r . A n t h o n y Ryle.
75

Martin Ryle's

AVOCET

out when on a beat) its bow made a lot of fuss at speed, but as soon as one
turned on to a reach the speed suddenly shot up and the wave noises w o u l d
disappear to be replaced by a hiss as the foils kept the boat strongly stabilized
with the lee float just touching the water.
A t lower speeds, especially to windward a finer entry on the floats would
probably have been an advantage, although this is difficult to achieve i f the
floats are not to extend beyond the width of the wing. Alternatively, the
solution may lie simply in increasing the foil area, so that they become effective
at lower speeds.
76

The stability is so good that a greater sail area c o u l d be carried, and it is

hoped to extend this by using a large Genoa.
The photographs show AVOCET
v/ith two grown-ups and three children
on board; though obviously deeper in the water, with slightly more wavemaking from the lee float, her performance does not seem to be greatly
affected, although some weather helm is produced.

PARANG
L.O.A.
L.W.L.
Beam O.A.

16 ft 6 in
15 ft 9 in
11 ft 6 in

Beam
Displacement
Sail area

2 ft 0 i n
632 lbs
160 sq ft

Designer: John Morwood

Builder: Peter C o t t e r i l l , Box 124, Selukwe, S. Rhodesia

Members may remember the PARANG
design on page 45. This
been built to the design by Peter Cotterill and his report is as follows:

has

20th A p r i l , 1959
"The foils work well in a reasonable wind and we have had her up w i t h the
floats well clear on a broad reach. There is then a noticeable increase i n
speed, with two up. Unfortunately, she is much too heavy at 400 lbs for
light breezes which, with two up, brings the waterline well above the chine.
She then sails about half the speed of a GP 14, does not point at all well
and does not always come about.

Peter Cotterill with foils retracted

" I n a Stronger wind, she seems quite as fast as a 505 and points and tacks
quite well, though at present, she tends to weathercockpresumably, the
result of too large a mainsail.
" A t present, 1 am fitting a dagger board and we hope to try her soon w i t h
the mast further forward.
"The short floats are obviously causing drag as a foot high spout appears
behind each at quite moderate speeds. Therefore, as indicated by A Y R S
N o . 23, 1 am constructing two double tapering floats 12 ft long, 6 i n wide and
77

8 in deep wliichi we plan to mount on l i in light steel tubes to give 8 ft beam.

The foils will be attachable when worth while winds are about.
"Once we get these modifications made, the boat should be fineanyway,
its all great f u n . "
10th May. 1959
"We are now making some progress. W i t h o u t the foils and with the mast
2 ft forward and dagger board, the boat tacks easily and does not crab.
W i t h the board up, her behaviour is little worse than with the o l d foils i n
vertically. Even the weight saving o f 40 lbs (the foils weighed 24 lbs each)
improves her light w i n d behaviour considerably. She now floats about 1 in
above the chine with a crew weight o f 340 lbs.
" I agree that 40' dihedral for the foils is too flat for low speeds. I noticed
that the speed of the boat dropped w i t h the foils right down compared w i t h
when they were vertical. Once the boat rose on them, of course, the speed
jumped up. I shall certainly try the long, 60 foils you suggest.
18th O c t o b e r , 1959
"1 have not been able to get much lift from my present foils. They are
similar to your JEHU configuration, 4 ft 4 i n by 1 ft 1 in w i t h ogival section,
made from solid obeche covered with one layer of fibreglass cloth. A t
neither 45 nor 60 have the floats been lifted and the lift has not even stopped
the float being submerged. The boat tacks as easily with the foil at 60
as it does at 85 and goes to windward quite well but in neither case as well
as w i t h the centreboard.
"The foils are set at about 2-3 incidence and this may well be too l o w
but even so, their drag is considerable. The speedometer only crept to 6 m p h
with the foil in but apparently similar strengths o f wind gave easy 8 to 10 m p h
with the foils out. I am modifying one of the PARANG
foils to fit one side
and increasing the incidence on the foil on the other side.
" Y o u r hull is easily driven to 10 mph in quite light winds. 12 m p h requires
considerably more wind and 14 mph, considerable gusts. Above 10 m p h ,
there is a considerable bow wave and when this hits the cross beam, spray
starts to fly. Bringing the crew back helps to reduce the wave but the speed
remains the same."
N o v e m b e r , 1959
" Y o u will see from the pictures that the new floats are in operation. There
is considerable improvement i n entry and exitthere is no fuss at the bow
and only a slight wake, the wake o f the main hull being the major feature
visible.
"We tried light metal tubes as cross beam but they looked so revolting
that I have reverted to 2 in by 4 in beams. She points and tacks easilyabout
as well as a FLYING
DUTCHMAN.
The floats weigh 28 lbs apiece and are
reinforced (to the chine) with fibreglass cloth.
"The foils work quite well at 60 but slow her in the light winds we usually
have here. We tried her in a "gale" the other week but blew the mast out
before we could try them. The boat is quite stable i n 30 m p h winds and i t
seems that the inherent stability is more than i n a cat.
78

Peter Cotter

of

PARANG

" I t seems that the foils are not needed in strong breezes since the boat
appears to "plane" at about 10 mph. Normally, the trailing edge o f the
floats are about 3 in in the water but at about 10 mph, the bows rise and both
float ends are clear of the water. The bow wave from the main hull comes
just midway along the floats.
"Having got the hull and floats behaving well, we are now having trouble
with the mainsail which scarcely pulls on the sheet. Even so, at a recent
regatta in very light winds, the boat appears to be faster than the
SNIPE
on all courses, about as fast as the FINNS
but slower thaji the 505's and
DUTCHMEN
and we were sailing mainly on the j i b . "

Summary
The fauhs in the PARANG

design are as follows:

1 The foils should be much lighter. I believe that Peter CotteriU's failure
was due at least partly to the angle o f incidence and that they should be
placed fore and aft, letting the angle of leeway provide the angle of incidence.
In this, 1 apparently also disagree with M a r t i n Ryle, Bob Harris
(TIGERCAT) and others. Symmetrical foils like those of JEHU
may be better
than asymmetrical foils.
2 The floats should have been long and narrow.
3 Cross beams are still a slightly difficult subject. Dural tubes, solid spruce
and plywood box spars have all been used successfully.
The PARANG
hull shape as in TAMAHINE
( A Y R S N o . 28) seems to be
satisfactory in the lower speed range. The hog is too heavy in the design
and 3/16 in plywood could be used instead o f 1 i n for the planking. Weight
is of paramount importance to all multihulled boats.
79

AN UNUSUAL

DESIGN

The designs sent in by the true inventors are the most ingenious seen but, on
the whole, tend to be "overinvented" with so many innovations on each
that the practical realisation appears to be almost impossible. If, however,
we examine such a design with an eye on each feature separately, we often
see some very ingenious things which could be very useful.
Let us then look at this design by A . R. Gibbons as a collection o f ideas
rather than a boat which would be built.

The basic idea is of a hydroplane with sails of enormous size. I n order

to carry this amount o f canvas, the craft has to be stabilized and this is done by
hydrofoils with dihedral but they are placed so that only the weather one is
used at any one time and it produces a force acting downwards as well as to
windward. This is the opposite concept which we in the A Y R S and all
other people have used. It is possible that it could be made to w o r k but a
danger of capsize would always be present. Forwards capsizing moment is
taken care of by a water ski arrangement ahead of the hydroplane h u l l .
The sails
These are two sails o f excellent plan shape mounted side by side from V
masts to their bent yards. They are fully battened and balanced to reduce
the pull on the sheets.
Summary
A design is shown which will supply our more imaginative readers w i t h food
for some interesting thoughts on yacht development.

A CRUISING HYDROFOIL
by A r t h u r Piver

TRIMARAN

The world would indeed be a dull place i f we could not have our dreams which
might come true. For the record, here is A r t h u r Fiver's concept o f what he
would like to develop.
I t is a hydrofoil trimaran of typically Piverish shape but with ladder foils.
The progress towards this concept is almost quickly occurring and already.
81

Arthur has completed the main hull o f his 30 ft cruising trimaran which
could well be the basis for this craft.
It will be most clear to all our readers that the A Y R S has always aimed at
such a craft as this and, when it has been attained, I feel that even our most
imaginative inventors will be hard pressed to find other fields to conquer.
At that stage, surely the boat development stage of the A Y R S will have been
completed.

W I N G S A I L DESIGN

by W i l l i a m Baur

1684, Littlestone Rd., Grosse Pointe Woods, 36, Michigan.

The drawings show a new r i g I am considering for ultimate use on my trimaran.

It may not look very pretty but it has some absolutely beautiful potentials.
The buoyant hydrofoils are also drawn and they provide about 700 lbs each
of buoyancy on a level keel.
The sail is the "oscillating a i r f o i l " type described i n V o l . 1 o f Herreshoff's
82

Common Sense of Yacht Design, i.e., it is an asymmetric airfoil, rotated in

tacking around its horizontal (chordwise) axis from one side to the other.
Also, since it will be suspended from the aerodynamic centre and therefore
is fully balanced, the tailsail can be used. 1 am trying to work out a means
of aileron control whereby the sail can be made to fly itself over from one
tack to the next without resorting to winches to haul the upper wingtip d o w n .

The mast consists of a tripod with legs spaced around the cabin, making
more room inside and eliminating interior structure support problems.
The sail is of fairly heavy weight dacron and is given its shape by full length
battens which will remain permanently in the sail. The battens w i l l travel on
slides up and down the mainspar which is suspended at its centre from the
peak of the tripod mast and there are extra spars which merely help to prevent
twist and to keep the proper shape. The sail can be reefed symmetrically
about the tailsail boom by hauling the battens in to it, or it may be reefed to
deck level when tacking is not necessary. The lower wingtip will fasten to a
ring spar around the t r i p o d to take some strain off" the suspension bearing and
a windward runner may be set up to the upper wingtip, i f needed.
83

The sail can be connected to the rudder to provide a windcourse steering

system and the coupling thereto could conceivably be servo driven from a
compass to provide a sailing autopilot.
Another little beauty of the set-up is the possibihty of a crows nest with
control station up below the peak of the tripod.
I f the main spar suspension bearing can be made with three angular degrees
of freedom, the sail can be rotated to a horizontal attitude to function as a
squaresail for tradewind running.
The only disadvantage I can see at present w o u l d be the weight of the r i g
but then, I have additional available buoyancy from the bouyant foils.

84

CHAPTER V I I
GIZMOA HYDROFOIL
by W i l l i a m C . P r i o r

EXPERIMENT
473, Falls Road, Chagrin Falls, Ohio

July, 1961
The drawing shows a diagram of a hydrofoil boat I sailed in the summer o f
1958. Y o u will see at once that it is a very simple design. The centre hull
was a 14 ft SAILFISH
hull which 1 had built from a large block of foam
plastic and covered with fibreglass. The outriggers were an afterthought
and the hydrofoils were an idea which has been rattling around in my head
ever since the days 1 used to drag my paddle in a canoe (the other guy worked).
In spite of its construction, it did sail, although it took some doing to get
the balance worked out correctly and 1 must admit that it was no idle breeze
that day. Before I had much chance to evaluate the thing, the rudder fell
apart and it was already well into a cold September so I d i d nothing more that

GIZMO

side view
85

Bill Prior's G/ZMO on 14 ft SAILFISH

year.

hull

The performance was quite spectacular, though, and very encouraging.

Since that summer, I have given a very serious study to the design o f hydrofoil sailboats and have built a boat almost completely, which I feel should
have excellent performance. I am finishing up the foils now and the boat
should be under test soon. The boat will carry 177 sq ft o f sail, weigh about
235 lbs and have a two man crew. The foil configuration will be quite
similar to GIZMO, the boat shown here.
The following existing sailboats actually fly; perhaps A Y R S
know of others and it would be interesting to know o f them:
1 Bob Gilruth's boat.
2 Baker's two boats, the 16 footer and the
3 Professor Locke's boat.
4 John Lyman's boat.
5

GIZMO.

6 J. S. Taylor's boat in Australia (1960).

86

MONITOR.

members

THE

PRIOR HYDROFOIL C R A F T (No. 2)

As can be seen, we got off the water last summer (1960), and several times
we flew i t w i t h two people aboard. It was very fast and a real thrill to lift
off the water and glide along on the foils, but overall, 1 was disappointed w i t h
its performance. M y major complaint was that it was awkward. Between
trying to handle two good sized sails and trying to steer, one's hands were full.
My rigging was not simple and the boat invariably had an entirely different
idea about where it was going than I had. I t did not point well and i f you
could get it to go about at all, it certainly would not do it while airborne.
Despite all this, it was a great improvement ov sr the GIZMO and it outlines a
little more clearly what can and cannot be done with foils.

Bill Prior's second flying hydrofoil

It must be remembered that this boat was designed as a test model, using
aluminium tubes for a framework, so that the overall layout could be changed
at w i l l . I found that this gave me so much w i n d resistance i n p r o p o r t i o n to
its weight that it responded like a feather w i t h not enough inertia to carry
it through manoeuvers. I am happy w i t h the triangular configuration,
although i t could stand being a little more narrow.
87

The pontoon design w i l l make the designers o f high speed hulls wince,
but I keep telling myself that above six miles per hour they are entirely free
of the water anyhow. I used I in harbourite plywood and glued them
together with resorcin cements. They were really light.
There is a lot of controversy about foils. I firmly believe that they must
go deep, with as high an aspect ratio as you can practically construct. M y
front foils were cantilevcred with four feet beyond the pontoon. M y chord
varied from three inches to one foot, with a modified N A C A section. I used a
pine core with an aircraft aluminium skin glued around it and I had three
small sheet metal "gates" (fences) on each. They were light, strong, and
did not present any problem with ventilation which did not creep beyond
the first gate. The rear foil was a fibreglass submerged foil, but towards
the end of the summer I had to change it over to a ladder foil to maintain a
more steady attitude.
I f anyone in the A Y R S would like more details, I would enjoy corresponding.

FLYING

WING

A Hydrofoil Trimaran (Trifoil)

L.O.A.
Overall Beam
M a i n Hull Beam

20 ft
12 ft
2 ft 3 in

Cockpit Length
Draught
Sail Area

7 ft
7 in
160 sq ft

D e s i g n e r and B u i l d e r : E r i c k J. M a n n e r s , A . M . B . I . M .

Following earlier model research, since 1954 Erick has been experimenting
with hydrofoils on full sized sailing craft. In common w i t h all other experimenters in this field, using fixed foils, he found himself up against the troubles
of spasmodic negative dive and "air entrainment".
I n 1957, he developed a very low aspect ratio asymmetric hydrofoil, which
he describes as an "elongated, slender underwater w i n g , " to which he has
applied the name TRIFOIL.
The value o f this conception is that it produces
a combination of buoyancy and dynamic lift and the low aspect ratio prevents
air being trapped on the weather side o f the foil. One can consider it as
being an extension of the Micronesian concept o f windward force from asymmetry but with less buoyancy, deeper immersion and dihedral to give dynamic
lift.

Foil performance
The FL YING WING has been tried out i n many different conditions and in a l l ,
the dynamic lift completely holds the boat up in any sailing direction w i t h
remarkably little heel.
88

89

Erick Manner's FLYING

WING

A t present, in order to prevent a sudden squall upsetting the boat i f caught

without weigh on her, reserve buoyancy sponsons have been fitted part way
along the cross beams parallel to the central hull. This seems to be a sensible
precaution though, due to the low aspect ratio, one would think that the foils

lan

90

would function more effectively under this circumstance than when sailing.
Except at exceptional angles of heel, far beyond the w o r k i n g o p t i m u m , these
sponsons w i l l never touch the water and consequently offer no drag other than
wind resistance.
Sailing w i t h t h e t r i f o i l
The hydrofoil arrangement gives the FL YING WING an exceptionally smooth
ride with no "wave shock" from the floats. N o r is there a quick m o t i o n
when a float meets a wave which can be annoying in a trimaran. Indeed,
Erick has actually made trimarans w i t h spring loading in the floats to try to
overcome this.
The FLYING
WING is fast and not only overtakes all orthodox comparable
sized single hulled racing dinghies but, to their disgust, has also led racing
catamarans. But quite apart from its speed potential, FLYING
WING
is dry and really comfortable. These features, combined w i t h a cheaper
production price have been the ultimate objective of this series o f experiments.
Last year, the prototype was left out in five November and December gales
but survived. One o f these gales was recorded by the local weather station
as Force 8 to 9 and was o f long duration. The FLYING
WING, rigged with
its mast was exposed to a seven mile fetch o f shoal water. She remained
virtually dry and completely unscathed except for a section o f new canvas
which had flapped to a pulp.
One or two outboard motors can be fitted and considerable dynamic lift can
result w i t h a noticeable absence o f wash disturbance. For winter storage
and ease of long distance transportation, the port and starboard cross beams
each with their half of the cockpit may easily be made detachable.
I n this
manner, they have been trailed behind a car.
Construction plans for this system are available at 7 7s Od to build one
boat only with a royalty of 3 3s Od for each subsequent boat built or supplied.
Editor: I n my opinion, the concept o f this craft is outstanding and, though
I have not sailed it myself, I feel that its development needs every encouragement.

THE ASPECT R A T I O OF S U R F A C E PIERCING H Y DROFOILS

I n this publication, we have two different opinions about the ideal aspect
ratio for hydrofoils. Firstly, we have the opinion of Erick Manners which is
backed by the traditional outrigger floats of Dar es Salaam (and Madagascar)
and by Micronesian asymmetry which has proved that aspect ratio can be
very low and work satisfactorily. Secondly, we have the opinion o f Bill Prior
in relation to his flying hydrofoil craft who has proved that aspect ratio
should be as high as is practically possible. Naturally, we would like to
know where the truth lies.
I think that these two viewpoints can be both satisfied by the fact that there
are two different forms of reaction from asymmetrical shapes i n the water.
Firstly, we can have surface wave reaction where the lee side o f the l o w
aspect ratio hydrofoil produces an upwards wave while the weather side
91

produces a hollow wave. Secondly, we can have dynamic pressures on a

fully submerged hydrofoil which are fully analagous to the pressure distribution
over aerofoils.
I n devising the ideal shape of hydrofoil, we therefore want two things:
1, A fairly long waterline length to give good surface wave reaction and,
2, deep penetration into the water to give good dynamic pressures. Only
trial and error will let us know what combination of these two features w i l l
give the best results. It will be remembered that my original guess was for a
triangular plan form l i times as long i n depth as i n the top c h o r d
(Chapter V ) .
Bill Prior obviously thinks that a higher aspect ratio is desirable
for a foil-borne craft and only time will let us know what we should have.

HYDROFOIL

SYSTEMS

by John Morwood
Sliding f o i l systems
I n the surface piercing foil systems, the main difficulty is the air entrainment.
This seems to be invariable and has occurred in the craft o f M a r t i n Ryle,
J. S. Taylor and everyone else. One of the ways of dealing with this is by
"fences" or thin "collars" around the foil which shed the air which slides
down the foil.
1 have been told that these "fences" can be very small, as
little as J in above the surface and still function, but know o f no details o f
the work which showed this. However, the main serious cause o f air on the
foil appears when a foil surfaces from a wave. In then re-enters the water
with the air on its upper surface and fails to achieve lift. It is not k n o w n i f
"fences" will shed air under this circumstance. L o w or very low aspect ratio
may be as efficient in preventing air entrainment as higher aspect ratio w i t h
fences.
Inverted T foils
On page 14 we described a hydrofoil boat made by Sam Catt and myself
which could be heeled to windward by the use o f its lee foil.
This was a slow heavy boat and a modern catamaran hull would be several
times as fast. We used only 4 sq ft of foil area on each side so a fast hull
would only need 1 sq ft per side or even less. Fig. 1 shows a simpler method
of using this system than we had and is also arranged so that the weather
foil need not be in the water. This must be the ultimate in fast sailing other
than foil-borne craft and, i f anyone were to make this, he must beat all the
catamarans and outriggers, even though some balancing would be necessary
in light winds. I t might be desirable to have the top pole in two parts to
allow the foils to be sloped up fully for handling on the shore. The main
drawing shows swivelling retraction while the little diagram on the right shows
a sliding system.
A u t o m a t i c variable incidence
The above system, though obviously the fastest possible, is not really suitable
for family sailing and some kind of a float system would be necessary for
92

\
\

Fig. I

general use. Some combination of float and foil is therefore needed and it is
natural to expect the float to do double duty as both stabiliser and controller
of the angle of attack of the foil as shown in Fig. 2. For simplicity, a water
ski is shown rather than a float. I n the sketches, the water ski is mounted
on two angled struts so that it can rise and fall but the rear strut goes through
the ski and is attached to the foil so that, when the ski is lifted, the foil gets
more positive incidence. The lift is taken to the rear cross bar by a collared
spring. The wire shown (or a stop on the spring collar) prevents negative
angle of attack for the foil. This system is, of course, a variety o f the H o o k
HYDROFIN
principle and the Figs. 3 and 4 show two other varieties o f the

93

same. I n Fig. 3 the water ski acts like the "Jockey float" o f the H o o k method
and the ski is kept aligned to the water flow by the strut o f the foil running
in a slot i n i t . I n Fig. 4, a light alloy pole is welded to the strut o f the foil
and controls the angle of attack while a bar running i n a slot at the end o f a
forward cross beam keeps this movement from being excessive, at the same
time keeping the pole aligned.
Differential f o i l systems
While one only needs lift from a hydrofoil on the leeside to keep a boat
upright, there is a strong case for having foils on either side which, between
them, exert a righting couple in the boat. The system in the left hand drawing
shows one such mechanism. When given leeway, a boat with this system
develops a lifting force on the leeside and a depressing force on the weather
side, the lee foil lifting to give the diff"erential angles of attack. This mech-

Differential hydrofoil stabilisers

anism has the fault that when the craft gets sternway, the foils work in the
opposite way and the craft w i l l immediately capsize. One therefore might
prefer a system which works even when the boat has sternway.
The two right hand drawings show hydrofoil stabilisers which w i l l revolve
through 360 and give lift or depression throughout. The middle drawing
shows a system based on short connecting bars which are angled to each
other, while the system on the right has the foil connective curved so that,
when it is pushed up, the angle of attack becomes more positive. It might
be necessary in both cases to connect the foil struts of each side together or
to the boat.
A micronesian h y d r o f o i l design
Now that Captain Mellonie has shown that a squaresail can be successfully
used on a boat sailed in the Micronesian way, the simplest possible foil boat
becomes self-evident. Three hydrofoils, each sloping up to leeward are
placed on the simplest possible Micronesian canoe. The two leeward foils
are interconnected to provide steering. A semi-elliptical squaresail provides
the power. Despite Prior's and Taylor's statements that craft can become
foil borne at about 6 knots, one feels that the wind pressure has to be strong
to get up but, even should this not be so, hydrofoil boats seem to exceed the
the speed of the wind and the side force must be considerable. I t is felt,
therefore, that sloping foils of this pattern are likely to provide the lift required,
even though the side force must nearly be equal to the weight of the craft and
crew.
94

One of the nicest things about the system advocated here is that the angle
of dihedral of the foils can be varied without any mechanism or structural
alteration. The dihedral angle needs to be small to get off the water but, at
the highest speeds, it should be greater. What these angles should be, we
don't know, but this craft can vary them between 30 and 60' by simply
altering the angle of heel of the whole craft.

HYDROFOILS FOR A

CATAMARAN

The previous hydrofoil craft appears to be a good way of getting hydrofoils

to work but it would only be a hydrofoil craft purely and simply. On the
other hand, many people now have catamarans and some might be prepared
to fit hydrofoils to increase their speed in strong winds. The cost o f the unit
described here would be small and its weight need only be some 50 lbs.
The configuration
This is a modified Grunberg system, using forward steering.
The m a i n foils
These are inverted T foils set at an angle of dihedral of 30 and fixed by
pushing them into the centreboard slots from below. A i r entrainment
down the struts may be expected, being worse in a sailing boat than in at
powered one, owing to the leeway. It is therefore suggested that these be
"fenced." The angle of attack which is best is not known but lies somewhere
between 5 and 7 . Dihedral should be 30.
The f o r w a r d float
Many people nowadays seem so addicted to " p l a n i n g " that they never even
consider other forms. The original Grunberg forward float was a planing
type. So is that of Christopher Hook but he, by using a flexible "heel" to
his float reduces its resistance, at the same time having it follow the short wave
slopes completely.
The float shown here is a bullet shaped float which, if 10 in in diameter and
6 ft long (exclusive of the point) will have a buoyancy o f about 200 lbs when
submerged. The parallel sided shape will have more stability of flow than a
small catamaran shaped hull. This float may be expected to go through
small waves but with no "wave shock" and little hindrance. The centre o f
buoyancy should be ahead of the pivot to keep the forward end from wanting
to dive and vertical and horizontal fins at the after end w i l l keep the float
aligned to the water flow.
95

96

The float a t t a c h m e n t
The float is attached to the catamaran by a single pole which passes under the
forward cross beam, on which it can turn, the after end being attached to the
forward end of the cockpit, either rigidly or by a spring i n compression.
This spring would allow some rise and fall o f the float without affecting the
catamaran. I n light winds and when launching, the after end o f the pole
would be pushed down, thus raising the float.
Steering
A t the forward end o f the pole is a collar i n which is set a short vertical r o d
at whose lower end is a j o i n t which will allow the float to pitch and i n whose
upper end is a cross beam. This cross beam is, i n turn attached by wires
to the connecting bar of the tillers so that steering w i l l be more or less normal.
Forward steering i n conventional boats gives extra resistance to forward
motion because it causes turbulent water flow. The steering is adequate,
however. I n the system suggested here, there can be no objection to forward
steering from these causes and it avoids complex mechanisms being added to
the rudders.

Summary
A method o f adding hydrofoils to a conventional catamaran is suggested.
The size of the forward float seems reasonable for a trial but a considerably
smaller float might be possible.
We conclude this article by showing how the same system could be applied
to a single h u l l .
97

CHAPTER V M I
WATER

BICYCLES**

John Morwood

July. 1961

I t is to be supposed that nearly all A Y R S members w i l l have amused themselves

at one time or another by inventing man-powered water vehicles. The t w o
commonest varieties o f these must be:
1 Buoyant water skis. The early varieties were hollow boxes. The modern
ones are of plastic foam. N o one seems to have liked either very much.
2 Small catamarans, powered by either paddle wheels or a propeller. These
have a limited application as beach boats for hire.
Both these must be limited by the short length o f the floats and the almost
invariable necessity for a bad shape. As compared w i t h these, hydrofoils
and submerged buoyancy can be o f good design and suffer no limitation o f
speed from their small size. I t may therefore set some useful trains o f thought
going to conjecture some ways of using them.
When the Prout brothers were Olympic entrants in the paddling canoe
classes, John Westell designed hydrofoils for one o f their kayaks and they
tried them out. They found that, though they were able to get considerable
dynamic lift, they were not able to get off the water and the drag of the foils
made them slower than normal. The trouble lay, o f course, in the lack o f
speed in the craft and foils (about 8 knots). The answer to this problem
obviously lies in keeping the craft stationary and having the foils moving.
This leads us to the first principle.
Man-powered f o i l craft
Three hydrofoils, either surface piercing or inverted T foils are made to
rotate around a very small boat o f CORACLE
size. A rudder placed outside
them will partially prevent the craft itself from turning. Because all the

power available is given to the hydrofoils and none is taken up by the boat,
it might be possible to lift the boat off the water by manpower. N o w , i f the
craft is given a slight heel backward with sliding foils, forward with T foils,
the craft should be able to make some forward progress. The rudder should
then able to keep the craft from revolving altogether.
W a t e r hobby-horse
On page 22 "Water stilts" were shown w i t h a side by side combination o f
submerged buoyancy and hydrofoils. Perhaps it might be a more satisfactory
98

method o f doing this to have the float-foils placed fore and aft and make the
craft pitch in order to get forward speed. The craft w o u l d then be unstable
laterally but steering the forward float-foil might let one keep upright, t h o u g h
lateral surface floats would be needed to start off.

Water "Tricycle"

Submerged buoyancy
Edmond Bruce has shown in the test tank that submerged buoyancy has less
resistance than any form of surface craft and indeed this has been proved
elsewhere as well as being obvious from considerations o f surface area and
wave making. A practical method of using submerged buoyancy is shown.

Submerged buoyancy

Surface piercing hydrofoils forward relate the submerged shape to the surface
and small floats on these wiU keep the craft upright when stationary, though the
main buoyancy will, of course, come to the surface and get a considerable angle
of heel when no one is aboard. The craft shown here w o u l d be best propelled
by either oars or engine and would not sail as well as some other craft shown
in this publication.

M a r i n e drives
Oars and paddles are not 100 per cent efficient but produce a "Slip stream" i n
the form of "Puddles" which are driven astern i n the water. The loss f r o m
this source is not great, however, and may not amount to more than 10 per
cent. The exact figure is not k n o w n to me.
Propellors are less efficient than oars and seldom exceed 70 per cent, the
loss arising from a combination o f "slip stream" and tip eddies. Paddlewheels are even less efficient because o f "Splash" as well as the two losses o f
the propellor.
99

I n theory, the most efficient form of marine drive is to be found i n hydrofoil

action which may be classified generically as "sculling." The two traditional
sculling methods are I , the simple sculling with an oar and 2, The Chinese
" Y u l o h " drawn by G. R. G . Worcester, which is a large oar on a pivot, tied
down by a long cord at its forward end. A n angle i n the oar and the skill
of the manipulator give the angle o f attack on each stroke. The large junks
were driven by several o f these yulohs, six or seven being often used.

A n efficient hydrofoil should give a thrust to drag ratio of 10 : 1 at least and

some modern applications are supposed to achieve this.
The modern applications of which I know are as follows:
1 The Hotchkiss " I m p e l l o r . " This is a sculling oar with a fabric blade of
low aspect ratio which takes an angle of attack on each stroke. The oar is
nearly horizontal and is worked like a tiller, giving a reasonably good
speed, it is claimed, though not as fast as orthodox oars.
2 A r t h u r Fiver's plastic blades on his dinghy. The aspect ratio was again low.
3 Julian Allen's " R o c k and R o l l " boats. The aspect ratio was higher i n these
craft but again, no great merit was claimed.
4 Several versions of "Flap foils" conjectured on pages 2 1 . and 22
100

5 The Voith-Schneider propellor. This consisted o f several high aspect ratio

hydrofoils mounted on a disc which spun around level w i t h the stern
planking of the hull. By twisting the hydrofoils on the disc, they drove
the boat forward. Efficiencies greater than that o f propellors were claimed
for this system but it is vulnerable and was never widely used.

Voity-Schneider propellor

6 The three spinning hydrofoils of the early part of this section may be
thought o f as a means o f propulsion.
Of all these five methods o f marine drive, only the refined U l o h sculling oar
and the three rotating foils appear to have any chance o f a useful application.

July, 1961

5a, Herschel Road, Cambridge

A Y R S members may remember my boat A VOCET,

described on page
73, which uses inclined hydrofoil leeboards in each float o f a trimaran
configuration.
On the whole, the trials this summer have gone quite well. Deeper main
foils, some 2 ft 10 i n below the bottoms of the floats were used and first trials
with a horizontal foil 18 in by 6 in on the b o t t o m o f the rudder were carried
out.
Gooseneck type fittings on the rudder track were used to take the lift.
Originally, 1 planned to use variable incidence on the rudder foil, controlled
by lifting the tiller in order to help in getting unstuck. This never really
worked because of friction in the control system when sailing hard, which
prevented the very rapid adjustment needed. As it turned out in the later
trials, I rather feel that the whole speed o f response of a foil-borne craft is so
rapid (since lift disappears i f you gain or lose 12 in in height) that the human
brain is inadequate even with an ideal control system.
The subsequent tests were done with fixed incidence o f the rudder foil,
with fairly rapid adjustment o f the angle so that tests at different angles
could be done before conditions had changed. I n one o f the early runs,
the incidence was set too high with most interesting and alarming results.
After accelerating to quite a high speed, w i t h dynamic lift beginning to appear,
the stern lift suddenly took control. The consequent decrease of main foil
incidence would then let the bows drop, w i t h an enormous bow wave of
solid water. The speed did not drop as much as one might expect and one
could even get a horrible oscillation (including some r o l l to confuse things)
at about 1 cycle per second as the main foils and rudder foil won alternately.
It was this high speed of oscillation which finally decided me against any
controlled flying and made it clear that one must have an inherently pitchstable system.
101

The obvious solution was to reduce the angle o f incidence o f the rudder
foil, so that its proportional change of lift with incidence was a lot larger
than for the main foils, as in aircraft.
Having done this, A VOCET behaved extremely nicely over a wide range
of wind speeds, though we never got her right up. Frequently, she would
go along extremely fast with considerable dynamic lift as indicated by her
waterline being about where it is at rest w i t h no crew aboard, i.e. the foils
were providing lift for a crew o f two.
The limitations to getting right up seemed to me:
a Insufficient lift far down so that i n rough water the hull clearance was too
small. This was aggravated by the fact that the dynamic roll stability o f
the present foil system is poor so that one tends to go along with the lee
float just immersed with consequent drag in rough water.
h A i r entrainment often occurs in rough water. Y o u can see long plumes
of air streaming off the bottom o f the lee foil and the lift is obviously
much reduced.
c The hull shape aft is probably not well suited to lifting clear. The transom
often travels 1 or 2 in out o f the water (while normally it is immersed 1 in)
but the water is sucked up for the last 6 ft o f hull and fills the gap. One
should possibly have a more planing hull but there will then be difficulties
in suiting the angle of incidence for best foil performance and for planing.
That was about all for this season except that as a general family and high
speed boat, 1 think A VOCET is very good. Sailing single handed is great
fun and and we certainly had some very fast sails both with one and two up.
I want now to try a modification of the main foils to give more deeply immersed
lift and better dynamic stability, i.e. more rapid increase in restoring forces
with both angle of heel and angle o f pitch.
M a r t i n Ryle

THE

HOOK

HYDROFOIL

Due to the efforts of A Y R S members, the trimaran is now an established

configuration and this leaves us only the j o b o f developing a satisfactory
hydrofoil craft. Various governments have spent many millions o f their
money on these craft but so far no one has really shown that they are fully
satisfactory for pleasure or commercial use. Both the Baker V foils and
the K a r l SEA WINGS are being sold commercially. N o reports on their
value have as yet been given to the A Y R S . However, from the films shown
to us by Christopher H o o k , it is quite obvious that his system is fully seaworthy in a seaway and that is where the other systems are suspect.
On pages 96 and 97 a hydrofoil system is shown o f roughly the Grunberg
configuration, using a float forward. The drawing here shows the same
system using a H o o k hydrofoil mechanism forward which can be steered.
The essence of the mechanism is that the "feeler a r m " works the hydrofoil
strut through a spring. However, the foil strut movements are heavily
damped so that the craft is not shaken by small waves but merely rides over
102

them. This is carried out in the drawing by a "dashpot" damper which is

fixed to another strut which is horizontal. N o w , i n any seaway of reasonable
size, occasional exceptionally high and vertical waves are met to which the
normal working o f the jockey float and feeler a r m wiU not give enough
response. This situation is catered for in this drawing by having the feeler
arm run up against a stop in the damper strut from the foil and this can tilt
the horizontal strut against the spring placed over the bow o f the boat.
I t is believed that the original patents o f the H o o k " H y d r o f i n " have r u n
out as they were taken out i n 1941 but it is not k n o w n i f any subsidiary
patents cover any o f the ideas suggested here.

FOIL C R A B

DESIGN
Hilton Hall, Hilton, Hunts.

Letter from: W i l l i a m Garnett

Dear Sir,
I n his Sand Yachts article Ian D i b d i n compares the merits of front-wheel
and rear-wheel steering. Mention should also be made o f the t h i r d type
which steers on all three wheels. K n o w n as the CRAB, and developed at
Gransden by Peter Shelton, this type works on the principle o f a fore-and-aft
sail fixed to the chassis, needing no manipulation, so that the yacht is always
"crabbing" sideways. The two front wheels are steered by left and right
hands and the rear wheel by two pedals, one to straighten i t (like hauling i n
the sheet) and the other to t u r n i t more to the side and luff up. A l l wheels
have slight trail, so that the human element acts as a differential between them.
The CRAB combines the advantages of b o t h the other types with several
of its own. I t is more manoeuvreable than either, and safer. I t may be
luffed, backwinded or even braked to a standstill; j i b i n g is easy; there is less
variation in sail balance, and it puts about through half the angle (because
its sail line is dead fore-and-aft). Owing to their high speed land yachts
often sail closer to the relative wind on a downwind beat than any watcrborne
craft on a close one, and this suits the u n i f o r m flat t r i m o f the CRAB.
The diagrams give my impression o f a new type o f craft i n which the CRAB
principle is applied to floats and foils. I find that model angled and swept
foils trail out sideways from a vertical king-pin without apparent flutter, and a
103

104

small amount of built-in lift is obtained from the natural toe-in o f a pair o f
these foils trailing free. Probably a sensitive control of the front foils would
enable the craft to rise to the waves and so avoid air entrainment, but i f this
occurred the air could be quickly shaken off. The frame is a t r i p o d held i n
compression by stays all round. A seat is mounted on a centre bar and
supported from the focal point. The backstay is sprung out on a spar to
give leech tension to an enlarged mainsail and a bowsprit stayed between
masthead and the two front feet perform the same function for the foresail.
I have not marked i n the linkages, but these could be by a system o f parallel
arms and wires. The live weight is rather far forward, but i f " f o r e " and " a f t "
are taken i n the line of the craft's course then the more it "crabs" the further
this weight moves aft.
Perhaps some reader who has had experience o f foils will send me his
comments.
WilUam Garnett
105

A DESIGN FOR A U T O M A T I C INCIDENCE C O N T R O L

OF H Y D R O F O I L S
by M. A . T . T r a s e n s t e r

Lane End, Itchen Stoke, Alresford, Hants.

The basic principle o f the system involves the use o f drag elements to control
the angle o f incidence o f the hydrofoil.
A variety of layouts are possible using this principle. Fig. 1 is the simplest,
but obviously involves a considerable amount o f appendage drag. In Fig. 1
the hydrofoil is free to rotate about an axis 2 transverse to the direction o f
travel. The angle o f incidence is controlled by two drag elements projecting
from the upper and lower surfaces of the hydrofoil. When the hydrofoil is
running low in the water the upper element 3 is dimensioned so as to cause

greater drag than the lower element, so increasing the angle of incidence and
giving the necessary lift. When the upper element breaks through the
water surface it will be subject to less drag, and the drag o f the lower element
4 fully submerged w i l l then tend to reduce the angle of incidence u n t i l the
assembly is i n equilibrium. A n y rise or fall from this position of equiUbrium
will be automatically counteracted. A t r i m fin 5 is incorporated w i t h the
lower drag element.

106

In order to avoid unnecessary drag the linkage shown i n F i g . 2 can be

used. The supporting strut 7 operates as the upper drag element and the
main hydrofoil 1 acts as the lower drag element. The hydrofoil 1 is rigidly
fixed to strut but constrained by the linkage so that it can only rotate around
transverse axis 2. This axis is proportionately dependent on L and
to
1 and 1^ so that t r i m can be arranged by altering the length of P . The
linkage is attached to the huU at points 6. A subsidiary surface piercing
foil 3 may be attached to the link member 4. The drag component o f the
subsidiary foil tends to increase the incidence o f the main submerged foil.
The drawings i n Fig. 2 are taken from an assembly mounted between the
hulls o f a twin-hulled craft. Overriding control, damping and resilient
suspension can be fitted to the assembly. Retraction o f the hydrofoil assembly
is also fairly easily incorporated.

107

CHAPTER I X
THE DIBB HYDROFOIL
L.O.A.
L.W.L.
Beam, hull
Beam, O.A.
Draft

21 ft 6 in
20 ft
1 ft 6 in
12 ft
8 in

TRIMARAN
Displacementhull

floil
Mast height from deck
Sail Area
Camber
Effective Aspect Ratio

A p r i l . 1963
650 lb
250 1b
27 ft 6 i n
190 sq ft
1 in 9
5 :1

Designer, builder and owner: George Dibb, 1 Hey woods Close, Teignmouth,
Devon.
This remarkable boat, years before its time, was described i n our publications
Nos. 43 and 49. The original description i n 43 was more concerned w i t h
the invention and development of the semi-elliptical squaresail than i n the
" F l o i l s " which is the name which George gave to the buoyant hydrofoils.
N o . 49 described how Fred Benyon-Tinker and Dennis Banham found her
in sailing trials.
We are not here concerned w i t h the sail which was clearly shown to be very
powerful and close-winded but needing more skill to use than the fore and
aft r i g . On putting about, the sail slammed across the boat forward o f the
mast, like a softish gybe and by attention to the geometry, this could have
been made softer. The main fault was that the sail was not " f a i l safe".
That is, that when the sheets were freed, the sail came more fore and aft
instead of more athwartships as w i t h the fore and aft r i g . However, despite
ell the unusual forces produced by the sail which often produced stern boards
of many knots, the craft itself never gave one moment's anxiety, being utterly
stable and seakindly. This was, of course, due to the design of the " F l o i l s " .

The " F l o i l s "

These are low aspect ratio hydrofoils w i t h flat outer faces and arcs o f circles
for the inner faces. The leading edges are swept-back and rounded, blending
into straight lower edges. The trailing edges are as shown i n the photograph.
The buoyancy of each is 250 lb, with the wing just clear o f the water. The
dihedral angle is 45 and the " t o e - i n " is 5.

Sailing performance
George D i b b writes: "She is beautifully stableit is nice to be able to walk
about 'big ship' styleand yet she has a nice soft sort of motion. She is
very light and responsive to the rudder but holds her course steadily. The
hydro-dynamic floils seem to be quite efficient, holding her up to her course
w i t h virtually no leeway (there is, o f course, no centreboard). I n very light
airs, she whispers along beautifully and is very fast when the w i n d really
blows."
108

The AYRS Sail George Dibb.

109

RYSA

(An E x p e r i m e n t a l Hydrofoil Y a c h t )
L.O.A.
L.W.L.
Beam

25 ft
24 ft 6 in
3 ft

Depth
Displacement
Sail Area

Designer: John Morwood

July, 1963
3 ft 9 i n
800 lbs
200 sq ft
Woodacres, Hythe

RYSA is a design which shows the fastest possible configuration o f a saihng

yacht. The version shown is a daysailing and camping cruising yacht,
though the headroom at 3 ft is a bit spartan for most people. However,
without the ballast and rudder skeg, she would be faster than any catamaran
or traimaran in existence.
The hull
A t the lower side of the design is an outline looking like the profiles o f t w o
yachts laid on their sides joined together like Siamese twins. I f this outline
is cut from a sheet of plywood 26 feet long by 10 ft wide, it can be bent around
a shape shown as the " B u l k h e a d " and, being held together at the keel, the
shape shown as the " T r a n s o m " can be fitted i n at the stern, the "Foredeck"
can be fitted on with deckbeams and one has a single narrow hull whose
profile is shown at the top of the plan. Transom A has less wetted surface
than Transom B.
The centreboard
This projects 4 ft 6 in below the hull and is I ft 6 i n i n chord, giving an aspect
ratio of 3 : 1. I n the version shown, the centreboard is ballasted which
seems the best way to use ballast to me because, when the board is d o w n ,
extra stability is needed. However, the amount of ballast used is only
enough to give stability for winds up to about 5 m p h . A t greater windspeeds,
the craft would heel excessively were it not for the hydrofoils. For a racing
version, the ballast need not be used.
The rudder
A skeg and fixed rudder are shown. A racing version would have a d r o p
rudder. A M i l l self steering gear is shown because I believe it to be the
best one for racing and cruising alike. I t has the advantage that the boat is
always under manual control as well as control by the gear.
The hydrofoils
These are two simple inverted T foils mounted at the ends o f a 14 ft strut
which is mounted by its centre to the hull by a universal j o i n t . The foil
strut is tilted to lee by a stay so that only the lee foil is in the water at any time.
A small strut on the foil strut gives the incidence control. This is the simplest
possible hydrofoil arrangement using inverted T foils and it must w o r k well.
Cockpit
N o cockpit is shown because it is possible to sail this boat f r o m inside the
hull, thus saving the windage o f the crew. Alternatively, a one foot wide
well could be cut in the r o u n d o f the deck for a distance o f 10 ft so that thecrew could move fore and aft.
Ill

Assessment
Though the hull of the plan may not be the best possible shape, even w i t h
transom A , the weight, wetted surface and windage must be far less than a
25 ft catamaran and the speeds to be expected must be far greater than anything we have yet known with catamarans or trimarans. As a cruiser w i t h
ballast, she should sleep two people.
Rysa as a flying h y d r o f o i l craft
The name of this craft is RYSA,
indicating that it not only is an A Y R S
conception (because RYSA is an anagram o f A Y R S ) but that it may be the
flying hydrofoil craft we have been looking for. The craft can be converted
to the flying version as follows: the foil strut is jointed at its centre so that
both foils can be brought into the water at the same time. Then, the H o o k
system shown on pages 53 and 54 is attached to the stem which
has been designed straight for this purpose. We now have a flying hydrofoil
craft which has every promise o f working.

Summary
A n experimental craft is shown which will be very cheap and easy to build.
It should sail at speeds far in excess o f the 25 foot catamarans using its hydrofoil stabilisers and may reach speeds o f 30 to 40 knots as a lifting hydrofoil
yacht. For the less ambitious yachtsman, it will make a fast inshore cruising
yacht with Spartan accommodation for two people. A t the time of writing,
I am trying to get a prototype made for trials.
Ed.:

The hull construction proved excessively difficult and was abandoned.

MICRONESIAN HYDROFOIL

CRAFT

by John Morwood
L.O.A.
L.W.L.
Beam (Hull)
Beam O.A.

20
17
3
14

ft
ft
ft
ft

L . O . A . Float
Beam Float
Sail Area

10 ft
3 ft
200 sq ft

This craft was originally conjectured and described i n publication N o . 63

Floats, Foils and Fluid Flows.
Having now made a model o f i t and shown it
at the 1963 London Boat Show, 1 am more than ever convinced that we
have here the ultimate in theoretical sailing efficiency.

The hulls
These are made of sheet plywood more or less to the RYSA forebody design
but with a rounded "forefoot" at both ends of the large and small hulls.
The two hulls are asymmetrical about the fore and aft as well as the athwartships axes. The beam o f each hull is the same because the float w i l l be very
little, i f at all, immersed when its relative beam begins to hold i t back.
112

All foils slope up to leewardProa type hydrofoil

113

The bridge deck

In the model, this consisted o f athwartships balsa wood planking but in a full
sized craft it would be a plywood sheeting on either side o f planks on edge
to give a strong box girder construction.
The hydrofoils
These are all the same size and shape. O f triangular plan f o r m the upper
chord is 3 ft long and the span is 4 ft 6 i n . The thickness at the base is 3 i n .
The lee side is flat and the weather side is an arc o f a circle (ogival section).
The foil on the float is fixed but the other two foils are steerable, though
only the after one on each tack is used as such, the forward foil on the main
hull being fixed by dropping its tiller on a peg. On an even keel, all foils
slope up to leeward as suggested by Commander Fawcett at 60.
The sail
On my model, the sail is a semi-elliptical squaresail, whose braces all come to a
sprit at right angles to the sail. This rig is similar to Captain Mellonie's.
Unfortunately, in my rig, the braces to the top "yards" go up at a very
acute angle, which might not give them very good control.
The t h e o r e t i c a l evaluation
I n this craft at low speeds, the hydrofoils might give excessive wetted area
but the wetted area o f the hulls would be small and might balance this. The
ssmi-elliptical sail would be efficient, making the overall efficiency o f the craft
good.
I n sailing as a displacement craft, the side force o f the sails w o u l d largely
be taken by the foils and converted into half its value as vertical lift which
would be useful.
Rising f r o m t h e w a t e r
I f the craft is now allowed to heel, the dihedral angle o f the foils would
decrease from 60 to about 45, thus converting the side force of the sails into
the same amount of vertical lift and, i f the wind and righting moment o f the
crew are great enough, there is every hope that the craft would leave the water
and run along on the three foils.
The craft as a flying h y d r o f o i l
Once up on the hydrofoils, one would then attempt to get the craft back on an
even keel when it would become the nearest thing to " T h e Theoretical Y a c h t "
which it is possible to imagine. Steering is by the aft foil and the crew would
be at the end of trapezes, outside the float.
Possible faults and difficulties
1 Getting the structure light enough.
2 Getting the sail to sit well without twist which would be i n the opposite
sense to that o f a n o r m a l sail, i.e., the head w o u l d be more fore and aft
than the foot.
114

3 The steering might be difficult for several reasons:

a the "overbalanced" steering foil can develop a violet luffing force i f there
is a fraction of lee helm. A " s t o p " would prevent this. Weather helm
is not so unbalanced but more normal steering might be achieved by a
piece of shock cord acting against it.
b The sail force comes much farther aft o f the centre of lateral resistance
than with any normal boat. I cannot guess the effects o f this.
Summary
A Micronesian hydrofoil craft is described which could be the nearest possible
craft to "The Theoretical Y a c h t . "
Ed.: One wonders how much Capt. Mellonie's
catamaran
contributed to the origin of Dick Newtek's
CHEERS.

and this design

TRIM
LOA
LWL
BOA
B. M a i n H u l l
Draft Main H u l l

16 ft 0 i n
15 ft 9 in
11 ft 0 in
2 ft
Sin

Floats
LOA
Beam
Cross-section Square
Sail Area

O w n e r and B u i l d e r : A l b e r t J . Felice

11 ft 0 in
13 i n
9 in x 9 in
150sqft

A p r i l , 1964

91 Sanctuory Road, Zabbar, Malta, G.C.

In 1960 I read about and joined the A Y R S , the idea being to improve my
three year old hard chined Catamaran. I n the back number Catamaran
Developments I read about L o r d Brabazon's clean entry genoa, instead o f a
main end j i b . 1 also fell in love with Parang, the M o r w o o d hydrofoil t r i maran, but I preferred a rounded b o t t o m and longer floats. The finished
plans looked like a Morwood-Brabazon with Felice flavour. TRIM
is my
third m u l t i - H u l l and my first really successful one, thanks to the A Y R S .
I chose the mast-aft rig for its efficiency and for its cheapness. I t is little
different from the Mediterranean Lateen and I had it made for only seventeen
pounds including the cost of the cotton.
The H u l l is 2 ft wide, w i t h almost semicircular bottom,
in deep. I t is so
made that the five millimetre plywood can be bent easily.
The floats are box shaped as in Parang, but have asymmetric prows which
give some dynamic lift when tilted. They are designed to be clear o f the
water when horizontal.
The wing is two feet wide, but the foil cross beam is 8 in above the level
of the deck and the hind one is 4 i n . T o make comfortable seating for the
crew, a plywood sheet is stretched along the b o t t o m of the first cross beam
to the top o f the second. This necessitated a sloping cockpit hatch which
lessens wind resistance and gives a dry ride. Also because o f the mast's
position, another cross beam had to be attached at the back to strengthen
the floats and attach stays.
The rudder is a normal lifting one but w i t h a T-shaped tiller. T o this are
attached two ropes leading to wooden loops worn on the helmsman's feet and
leaving the hands free.
115

The hydrofoils resemble Parang's but they are more swept back and are
attached by double brackets. These hydrofoils work well in strong winds
but in lighter ones they make a lot o f lee-way. I t may be that when the
craft is tilted the angle of attack is increased.
The 26 ft mast is o f solid spruce, made from splicing two ex-navy masts.
It works well, but an aluminium one would be much lighter but prohibitively
expensive.
The boom is along the back of the sail and so gives a good clean flow w i t h
almost no boom eddy. When other craft have to back the j i b , all I have to
do is to push the boom forward to one side and the craft p r o m p t l y turns the
other way. The flow of the sail can be adjusted simply by t r i m m i n g the sheets.
When before the wind, however, a wisker-pole has to be used. Sometimes I
wonder i f a highly roached main sail may not be better, because of the larger
sail area possible.
The craft is fast and dry, much faster than the dinghies. However I never
reached the fantastic speeds which are claimed for a Shearwater probably
due to the smaller sail area and more wind resistance.

Albert Felice's TRIM.

Sailing TRIM

Note long floats

with mast-aft rig

116

DOWNWIND YACHT
NOVEMBER

DESIGN

1963-MARCH 1964

by Michael Costagliola

October, 1964

T h e fan
We use a 20 in 4-blade fan for power, w i t h a set o f vanes to take out the spiral
flow.
This is followed by an 18 in section o f hexagonal honeycomb ( f in)
cells) with an exit aperture of 10 i n x 20 i n . The vanes are curved metal
slats from a Venetian blind. The honeycomb is a manufactured paper
product, stiffened with a plastic coating. The w i n d produced by this little
tunnel is amazingly straight and uniform. We demonstrate this by a trail of
soap bubbles in the stream. The windspeed is over 8 knots.

2
117

The hulls
To provide the utmost freedom and creativity, we have established
following classes:
Class ' A " M u l t i h u l l
Class " B " M u l t i h u l l
MonohuU
Experimental Class

the

7 in to 12 in in length.
Below 7 in in length.
up to 12 in in length.
up to 12 in i n length.

This class includes hydrofoils and other craft unclassifiable i n the first three
groups.
The m u l t i h u l l s
The first boats built were Catamarans made from drinking straws paper,
cellophane or other plastic.
These are easy to build but have problems o f
water soakage. Some early boats were of the " S k i " type made from styrofoam which is the lightest structural material but it absorbs some water a n d
cannot be made as smooth as one w o u l d like.
These crude boats were followed by balsa catamarans, both solid and
hollow. Various sections were tried from extreme "Plank on edge" to the
ski type as in the drawing. Each o f these shapes had promise at one time o r
another. Assessment was impossible because of varying sails, lengths,
weights and surface finishes. One controlled test was, however, made w i t h
two models that were identical except that one had shape 3 and the other
shape 4. Shape 3 was conclusively superior. Both were subsequently
beaten by a hollow balsa cat with shape 2. But it was 10 in long as compared
with the 8 i n length o f the other models. This cat also had excellent directional
stability.

>

The next significant step was made on January 1st, 1964 with the construction of hulls from a plastic film o f 1 t h o u " M y l a r " coated w i t h 4 thou
polyethylene which is used to plasticize pictures, identity cards etc. I t is
easily cut and heat sealed with a soldering iron. A basic tube is formed as
in Fig. 3 and heat sealed at the ends to make a catamaran hull which is
extremely light, saving 35 per cent to 40 per cent in weight over balsa. The
Mylar gives a surface which is the ultimate i n smoothness. The most successful multihulls o f this type have been long, slender, displacement catamarans.
A typical winner had 10 i n hulls w i t h about i i n beam o f h u l l and a weight
of 0.006 pounds.
118

VARIOUS

jS^eC

SWACeO

1-

FOIL

0 DUSi-E

119

Monohulls
Monohulls have been built o f styrofoam, balsa, thin veneer, plastic and
plastic film over a framework. The most successful have been pure planing
types with flat, V or arc bottoms. Most competitors avoid monohulls as they
require more labour and are trickier to design than catamarans. Due to the
tendency to pitch-pole in the strong breezes used, monohulls must either be
abnormally long (compared to a conventional boat), carry ballast in the stern
or carry a stern outrigger with a skeg or rudder on the end. T o date n o
monohull has been able to beat the catamarans but the field is largely u n explored as yet due to the general preoccupation with catamarans.
E x p e r i m e n t a l class
This class has led to some of the most interesting developments and even
"Breakthroughs" in the art. Various kinds of planing surfaces, floats, foils,
skis, pontoons and other devices have been employed. One of the most
important and unusual features of this field o f experimentation is the surface
tension effect which, in these light models, can be greater than the weight o f
the boat. Foils have difficulty in lifting a hull which tends to stay " g l u e d " to
the surface. One answer is to make the foils w i t h enough flotation to support
the boat at rest and eliminate the hull. Foils can be made from styrofoam
or the Mylar tubes. Some configurations are shown in the sketches.
One unusual and spectacular effect that can be achieved is to combine a
high-lift sail with a hydrofoil boat such that the forward foil will completely
leave the water. The boat w i l l sail down the tank with the bow up at an angle
of 30 to 40 from the horizontal. This is not conducive to speed but is
fascinating to observe.
The Experimental Class designs to date have not equalled the speed o f the
displacement or planing catamarans. The hydrofoils have sudden bursts o f
speed but have erratic and unpredictable behaviour. Balance, t r i m and
stability are extremely critical i n these unusual craft.
There are two unique aspects of hydrofoil design for this application which
should be remembered:
a The driving force acts at some distance above the water, instead o f underwater, as in power craft,
b The wind strength diminishes as the boat goes down the tank. I t may be
far fetched to conceive o f a hydrofoil that would be properly trimmed for a
wide range o f breeze and speed. Various forms o f automatic compensation
for varying w i n d force have been considered but not built as yet.
The speeds achieved to date do not exceed 30 per cent to 33 per cent o f the
wind speed. There is every reason to believe that we w i l l eventually get to
50 per cent o f w i n d speed w i t h improved designs, techniques and materials.

120

f
I

OPINIONS A B O U T
by Edmond Bruce

CHAPTER X
HYDROFOILS

A p r i l , 1965

A properly oriented hydrofoil produces a large reaction component o f force

at right angles to its direction of motion, relative to the water. This is i n
addition to a drag component which opposes the motion.
A hydrofoil's use as a rudder for steering a boat is commonplace. I t is
used often as a lateral plane area on sailing craft to permit progress to w i n d ward. The additional possibilities o f using hydrofoils, as lifters o f hulls above
water and for the stabilization o f heeling, has appeared i n a number o f A Y R S
writings.
The present writer would like to express his opinion about the limitations
in the use of hydrofoils as lifters o f sailing hulls. Nevertheless, praise is i n
order for their success in avoiding heeling at all speeds, without adjustment.
This was achieved in the writer's experiments, first w i t h models and finally
on a full size sail-boat.
Lifters
Lift resulting from buoyancy is free. Lift obtained from hydrofoils must
be paid for by induced drag. A precise criterion as to which method is better
for a boat, when employed separately, is to compare the lift-drag ratio o f the
hydrofoils, of adequate area, with the buoyancy-drag ratio of the displacement
hull, at a given speed. The latter ratio is synonymous w i t h the weight/
resistance ratio of the hull. Buoyancy just equals weight when dynamic lift
is not present. This ratio is the reciprocal of the resistance/weight r a t i o
commonly used in performance curves plotted against, say V / y L or V / W ^
Referring to Fig. 1, there are graphed, as examples, the weight/resistance
ratio versus V / \ / L for Models N o . 5 and N o . 12 of the writer's article i n
A Y R S N o . 45. The speed in knots is indicated for an assumed water-line
length of 25 ft. Also appearing are dotted hues which are independent o f
speed, one o f which represents Lift/Drag = 10. This is about as well as
deeply immersed, lifting hydrofoils have done i n the presence o f strut drag,
rudder drag and other limitations. The dotted line indicating L i f t / D r a g = 6
represents an exceptionally good planing hull rather than foils.
It is seen that, up to " h u l l speed" o f V / V L = 1.34, the lifters are completely out-classed by buoyancy. Merely lifting a hull out o f water does not
mean success. I t takes about double hull speed to make the lifters show some
profit over these particular hulls. Sailing craft, i n variable winds, must
eflSciently cover a wide range o f speeds to be satisfactory. Racing motorboats are designed for top speed. The verdict or a compromise is up to the
reader.
A t this point, I would fike to promote thought on some different approaches
to lift. Since the wind is the source of all sailing power, it appears that hull
lift could be accomplished more efficiently by properly angling the sails
121

somewhat horizontally. A n angle o f attack would be provided which gives

a lifting component to the sail force as well as driving and side-force components. This type of lift is familiar to ice-skate sailors. Thus sail Hft
would be employed rather than the indirect dynamic lift o f the water. This
water lift, with it's induced drag, results from the hull's forward movement
with an angle o f attack. Surface gravity-wave drag, which can be high i n
water, is substantially non-existent i n the air. Therefore less drag results i f
the hull avoids an angle o f attack w i t h the water but uses sail lift instead.
Another type o f lift, that appears intriguing, is to convert a sailing hull's
side-force into lift rather than using it's precious driving force. This w i l l be
described in greater detail i n a following section.
122

Stabilizers
Now let us turn to heeling stabilizers.
M a n y visitors to the writer's laminarflow towing tank, during the last four years, have seen demonstrations o f a
model having a special single outrigger attached to an excellent main hull.
This model is completely non-heeling on any course or with any wind strength.
This is obtained dynamically without the help o f buoyancy or weight. I t is
also the highest pointing and fastest model to windward, under comparable
conditions, ever tested in my tank. This includes numerous catamarans
and trimarans.
Much has been written i n A Y R S publications concerning different forms
o f righting devices to counteract heeling. Some have used buoyancy to
leeward or weight to windward at the end of an arm of some sort. A few
have suggested hydrofoils angled from the vertical as a combination lateral
plane and heeling stabilizer. I n some cases, even the sail plan has been
tilted from the vertical to help achieve counter-heeling.
I n re-studying the merit o f these arrangements, the angled sail method was
not viewed with favour except possibly to provide lift instead of reefing. The
driving component, on a windward course, falls off as the square of the cosine
of the angle of tilt from the vertical.
Buoyancy at the end of a leeward extending arm seemed inferior to outof-water weight to windward. The latter avoids additional water drag. This
is probably the reason why the Micronesians preferred keeping their single
outrigger to windward.
The suggestion o f an angled hydrofoil as a combination stabilizer and lateral
plane was most interesting. It became the subject of the following experiments:
Single o u t r i g g e r
A saihng combination, employing a single outrigger, is shown going to
windward in Fig. 2. A cross-section is drawn which is in a vertical plane
containing the sail's centre of effort, C.E. This out rigger configuration has
been chosen among several possibilities because of it's simplicity. Also, the

Fig. 2-A

Port tack

Fig. 2-B

123

Starboard tack

need for an end-for-end reversal of hull motion when tacking, such as is

associated with some single outriggers, has vanished.
Let us examine the magnitude, direction and location o f the forces involved.
A sail force vector, i n a horizontal plane, is always countered by an equal
and opposite horizontal component of the total water force, after acceleration
ceases. A m o n g the vertical components, the weight force vector is always
downward. It is opposed exactly by the vector sum of the forces of buoyancy
and of dynamic lift ( I ) or depression ( ). I f these forces, projected on the
common sectional plane, are so positioned that the lateral heeling moments,
including the sail, are just countered by the lateral righting moments o f the
remaining forces, no heeling would occur.
Referring again to Fig. 2, one is permitted to sum up the moments about
any point whatever, within the projection plane, since the result w i l l be the
same. For simplicity, point O is used. I t is the depth o f the centre-ofresistance, C.R., of the thin, flat board, assumed to dominate, but under the
centre-of-gravity, C.G., o f the complete h u l l . The moments o f both weight
and buoyancy disappear, for this case, since their moment arms have no length.
Note that the crew counter-balances the outrigger weight. This keeps its
floatation out o f water to avoid water drag during steady progress. This
floatation is used for static stability when at rest. I t also makes a smaller
contribution toward stability during acceleration. However, since the sideways component of steady state m o t i o n is so rapidly accomplished, no more
than a slight lateral bobble would occur even i f the floatation were not in
the water during this period.
The board may move in and out o f the water by wave action, thus changing
its immersed area over quite a range, without changing the righting force o r
its moment. As the board comes out of water, its side-slip increases. This
is equivalent to a larger angle of attack in respect to the resulting direction
of travel. This larger angle of attack compensates for the reduced area. The
righting moment is substantially unchanged up to the point o f " s t a l l i n g . "
This does not occur until the angle of attack becomes greater than about 15.
The original angle o f attack should be only about 4 to produce the largest
lift-drag ratio of which the board is capable.
I n the full size experiments, over half o f the board area could come out o f
the water and still provide good compensation for the heeling moment o f the
sail. Beyond this point, the crew weight should be shifted toward the outrigger. There is ample time to do this as is the case when any small boat heels.
The solution appearing on Fig. 2-A shows the requirements for no heeling
at any strength o f wind or boat speed. I f the board's plane angle from the
vertical is 45 , the horizontal distance of the board's centre-of-resistance from
the hull's centre-line just equals the height o f the sail's C.E. above the board's
C.R. A t this separation, the waves generated by the outrigger and by the
main hull do not strike the opposite hull. I f either d i d , this w o u l d result i n
increased resistance overall. W i t h an a r m longer than this, one w o u l d
actually heel to windward, rather than to leeward, in a puflF of wind.
Fig. 2-B shows that, on the opposite tack, non-heeling continues to exist.
This single outrigger need not reverse its hull travel, when tacking, as has
discouraged so many admirers of such craft.
124

There is an odd difference between the two taclcs. The whole system is
slightly dynamically depressed when the outrigger it to windward. The
system is slightly lifted when the outrigger is to leeward. I n practice, little
difference is noted between tacks. The board is a bit more efficient when its
pressure side is uppermost. This largely compensates for an increased
apparent weight on this tack. Water does not tend to go around the lower
tip of the board from the upper high pressure side to the other side at lower
pressure. I t is much like dirt in a shovel. This was observed on the model
with powdered rosin suspended in the water.
Note that the above mentioned lift or depression is generated from the
sail's non-productive side-force. The previous criticism of lift from planing
hulls and foils was based on its dissipation of the sail driving-force component.
This side-force concept deserves more study by all o f us.
A small difference in balance between tacks appears i n Fig. 3. This can
be rebalanced by slightly altering the position adjustment of the pivoted
board, as shown, by an opposing pair of control lines. The board's centreof-resistance should be swung a little more forward when the outrigger is on
the opposite side of the boat than the wind. Snappy tiller action is advantageous during tacking as is true for any light boat.
Surface piercing foils often have two types of difficulties. One is "cavitat i o n " and the other is air "ventilation." A large area board is used to reduce
the pressure per unit area to avoid cavitation. A i r ventilation down the l o w
pressure surface, i f present, often can be blocked by a "fence." This may be
obtained through slightly immersing the outrigger's buoyancy form by a shift
in the crew weight toward the outrigger. Neither o f these two potential
difficulties has appeared either in the model or at full size. W i t h o u t the
reserve buoyancy in the water, the board w i l l totally ignore the presence o f
waves.
The entire outrigger should be as light as size and ruggedness dictate.
While not employed in these tests, an inflated vinylized nylon shape might be
excellent as the outrigger's light-weight reserve floatation. As to size, I
believe that the buoyancy f o r m should be small enough to allow large waves
to gently break over it rather than absorbing the shocks o f riding the wave
profiles. The float, used in the present experiment, was larger than appropriate for racing. A cruiser, insisting on complete safety off-shore, may
desire a large outrigger. Its totally-immersed effective buoyancy might be
made equal to its out-of-water weight to provide the same degree of stability
on a lateral roll toward either side when dynamic stabilization is not available.
For practical reasons of lateral spread, John Stoddart has kindly suggested
that users may want to make the outrigger's arm a hinged, folding pantograph.
This would be useful in entering slips or when auxiliary power is employed
in narrow channels.
I w i l l not burden this writing with the extensive details of tank test data.
Model work led to a full size trial on the International 12 ft Dinghy described
by the writer i n A Y R S N o 40. This was chosen because of the extensive
data that exists on this hull. A n y sailing craft could have been used. One
having a high value o f length over beam would be preferable for speed since
main hull lateral stability is no longer important.
125

Starboard tack.

Board adjustment for balance

Every performance characteristic of the model, including increased speed

to windward and when reaching, was confirmed at full size. Fig. 4 is a
photograph of the dinghy model with outrigger. Fig. 5 is a photo, including
a smile o f success, o f it's full size counterpart under sail and using a 13-pound
aluminium ladder as the outrigger arm. The reserve-buoyancy form and the
board, for this experiment, were made of water-proof plywood. The hull's
regular centre-board was not used.
The principal gain in speed seems to result from increased sail drive through
non-heeling. For example, i f a conventional, strong-wind, leeward heel
126

Edmond Bruce sailing with a single canted leeboard

127

of, say, 20 is avoided, the sail drive w o u l d be greater by approximately 13

per cent. A 30 heel avoidance would gain 33 per cent. These gains are far
larger than possible reductions in hull resistance through being sailed upright.
Avoiding wave-interference between main hull and outrigger is w o r t h something in speed. Also, a m i n i m u m o f increased weight and wetted surface is
tolerated when only a single small outrigger is used. A l l o f these factors give
the structure advantages over catamarans and trimarans.
M y hesitance in showing the tank curves, o f the original boat versus this
hull and sail with the added non-heeling outrigger, is that, for best windward
sailing, the original boat had a centre-board which tested to be too small.
This was rectified in the outrigger with a startling improvement. For this
reason, a comparison would appear to be excessively optimistic.
I must mention the only criticism I have heard about this outrigger project.
A teenager remarked, " W h a t are you trying to do, r u i n sailing? I like to
heel."
Further e x p e r i m e n t s
Since sails with curvature are better than flat sails, the same should be true
of boards. This has been the experience in two o f my other tank projects,
one of which is now being observed in full size tests. As a result o f model
work, a study at full size of curved, thin-plate, angled boards on outriggers
is planned for the future.
Two boards, each shaped for a particular tack, will be used one at a time.
These will be located at each end o f a self-shding, lateral arm. Each w i l l
have its own separate reserve buoyancy. This is because self-buoyant, thick
foils, in water (also in air), are k n o w n to "stall' too easily at sail-boat speeds,
thus ruining their lift-drag ratios.
The above thick foil "stalling" or "separation" is revealed in low-speed
wind tunnels. I n high-speed wind tunnels or in aeronautics, this does not
occur so easily. A model airplane with the thick wings o f its full size counterpart probably will not fly. T h i n wings must be substituted. Nature provides
insects and the smaller birds with thin wings. Fish have thin fins except the
largest.
W i t h the above automatic sliding outriggers, a high degree o f directional
stabihty will exist since the board in use will be extended with its resistance
far to windward on either tack. The sail force w i l l lead away from this
centre o f water resistance, not towards it.
Even i f A Y R S members like to heel, as did the mentioned teenager, the
improved speed to windward and especially when close-reaching, for the same
sail area, should prove interesting. W i t h the heeling stability that has been
achieved, one wonders what is the upper area limit for an enlarged sail plan.

128

CHAPTER X I
HYDROFOIL

STABILIZERS

by John Morwood

A p r i l , 1965

It appears that the stabihzers of my RYSA design are not quite clear. The
drawing shows how the angle of the thwartships beam is controlled by two
wires and an overcentre strut. To complete the idea, mast running stays
are shown connected to the wires of the opposite sides, thus abolishing shrouds.
The tiller lines and the incidence control of cross beam are controlled by a
single horizontal " j o y stick."
In my opinion, outrigged buoyancy will not be necessary for light winds
because the capsizing rate will be slow enough to let the crew balance the
craft upright. However, at least some people disagree with this and so I
show three different methods of combining outrigged buoyancy w i t h an
incidence control mechanism which might be suitable for cruisers.

129

130

c/o A.Y.R.S., Woodacres, Hythe, Kent

Letterfrom: Andrew Norton

Dear Sir,
A p r i l , 1965
Since writing to you for information on the ideal shape of hydrofoils, I
have surveyed as much research literature as I could procure on the topic.
I subsequently designed and built a model hydrofoil craft 4 ft i n length.
It had fixed foils, two at the front and the main load carrying foil aft of the
C of G of the boat. The two front foils were designed to work initially as
hydrofoils and later at full speed as planing surfaces. The change of incidence
on all foils is due entirely to the attitude of the craft, although they have
some initial positive incidence when at rest. The main foil which runs
underneath the craft is designed solely as a hydrofoil with the immersed area
varying with speed, i.e. as the lift increases, the boat rises and removes some
of the foil from the water.

Andrew Norton's model hydrofoil

131

The progress o f the model is as follows:

1 A t rest.
2 The front foils produce lift and change the attitude o f the hulls. This
increases the angle of attack of the main foil.
3 The main foil lifts the rear end of the model.
4 The front foils now plane on the surface completely clear of the water, the
immersion of the main foil being dependent on the model speed.
The model was driven by an air propeller and it was towed. I t seemed
very stable during the limited testing it was given. I t suffered a lot o f damage
due to hitting rocks on its tests runs, which were carried out on the river Esk.
However, the tests give some confidence in the proposed hydrofoil configuration, particularly motor propelled. By altering the line o f thrust o f the air
propeller, I managed to produce a reasonable heeling moment which went
some way towards simulating the effect o f sails. (The motor driven propeller
was mounted on a pylon 12 in above the deck). This, of course, opened up a
rather larger test programme and points to future development as under
conditions of " m o t o r at full power and boat at rest" the side force caused
too much heel as, apart from the wooden support structure for the foils, 1
had no buoyancy in what would be the float position on a trimaran. However,
if the boat was towed off before applying full power to the propellor, it heeled
but continued to stay foil borne. A t the present time, I have not continued
development on this model. I f you consider that yourself or any members
might be interested, 1 am prepared to discuss the design in more detail and
even continue w i t h the development, when I have finished my current model
which is intended to be a cruising trimaran.

Letter f r o m : Bill H o l r o y d

"Larn," Montrose Road, Arbroath, Angus, Scotland

Dear Sir,

A p r i l , 1965

1 am afraid my hydrofoil experiment petered out after considerable w o r k

and expense. It was probably too ambitious and complex for both my
capabilities and my pocket! It was a test bed of different foil arrangements
with no hull and an unorthodox approach.
1 had a single foil on the stem which anticipated one or two I've seen since
and which was adjustable in pitch. 1 hoped this incidence would be transmitted to all the craft and the rear fixed foils and this seemed to be so but the
experiments didn't continue long enough to confirm it completely. The
forward foil shape was as in the drawing.
The " H u l l " was a mast and the foils were attached using a " D e x i a n " wing
of the plan view shown. Plastic buoyancy floats were fixed below the
"Dexian."
The object was to study (1) sweep forward sloping foils, (2) sweep back
sloping foils, (3) the normal high speed foils and (4) the front climbing f o i l .
1 had the lot plus the unusual front single foil arrangement.
132

133

The craft was tried out in Montrose basin over a course of two months
and we ran into a series of difficulties and mishaps. I tested it w i t h a diving
suit on i n case o f capsize but the craft was certainly stable even at 1 k n o t .
The main trouble came from the engine mounting and adjusting mechanism
as the engine would not function fixed because o f the back pressure on the
exhaust when too deeply immersed. This necessitated a method o f raising
and lowering the engine as the craft rose or fell on the foilswe could not
then afford to get a long shaft engine which was suitable.
I was stranded, swept away, dowsed and frozen on my off days which were
few.
The attending boat twice was holed and repaired and eventually sank
when returning to Arbroathfortunately my pals were picked up by the
Montrose lifeboat. While awaiting a suitable engine we once tried towing
the craft against the fast r i p on the Esk and the whole thing came up on the
foils at a very low speed (it was unmanned) and taught me that the best way
to test hydrofoils is in a fast river tied to a bridge and unmannedin this
way it can be studied at leisure. We ran out o f time and money and my pals
(understandably) ran out of patience. We used a SEAGULL
Ah hp mainly
and I hadn't the money to buy a more powerful one.
Despite all our failures, I still believe the arrangement was sound though
we didn't get a real chance to assess its capabilities or study the foil arrangements. I believed that a foil sloping down and forward into the flow would
minimise bubble interference but did not carry on long enough to be able
to do any proper observations.
I learnt a lot the hard, cold way. N o w I believe that the m i n i m u m and
simplest of foil arrangements are best and that the way to achieve this is to
have adjustable telescopic foils which reduce appropriately in size w i t h speed
increase. This can be achieved by a device similar to the demand valve o f an
aqualung breathing apparatusat depth, air pressure activated by deeper
water pressure opens out the foils and the foils contract as they near the
surface because o f decreasing water pressure. I t would be tricky mechanically
but effective and automatic.
Well, there's the sad story and I hope Sir that I've entertained you i f not
enlightened you in any way.
O t h e r f o i l ideas
1 W o u l d not a Venetian b l i n d arrangement o f foils fixed across a dock
entrance break down waves in bad weather and be much cheaper than
dock gates or breakwaters?
I t may be better to have inverted foils to
disintegrate waves upward in spray. I t is worth a thought.
2 Another idea is to use small foils on fishing nets to keep the trawling bags
open by pulling outwards without the use of poles or stiffeners o f any sort.
3 I haven't seen a foil yet with a tail plane stabilizer as on aircraft. This
could be useful for certain purposes.
4 I also worked out a method o f foil propulsion that you may enlarge on.
I t is difficult to illustrate but is based on the flapping foil except that a
number of foils flap not up and down but across and are complementary
to each other. This arrangement could be set along the transom and be
protected inside a " b o x . " The fluctuating foils suck i n and squeeze out
water at high speed. This is rather complicated mechanically and may
not be w o r t h experiment.
134

Elksveien 52, Oslo 7, N o r w a y

Letter f r o m : Helge Ingeberg

Dear Sir,
Dozing by the firewhen the new baby isn't cryingI have come t o the
conclusion that the simplest design for trying out aero-and hydro-foils w o u l d
be something like the " F l y i n g Flounder" shown on the enclosed sketch.
Being no drawer of drawings, as Chesteron w o u l d say, I must resort to words.

This thing consists of a circular frame, 3 hydrofoils, a t r i p o d mast and an

A Y R S sail. On the periphery o f the frame is an endless trackspht tube
in which runs the " b o o m " and the boom sheets, which leave the track inwards
at the point of the windward foil. Further, there are two sheets for the sail
to adjust inclination and angle, or let fly. Whether o f the cruising or racing
type, this design would give me a l o t o f space, o f which I ' m very fond.
Can
you give me any ideas on suitable proportions for sail and foils.
P.S.Alternative name, i f successful, could be "Soaring Sole."
135

HYDROFOIL

by Bruce C l a r k

STABILIZERS

October, 1965

l i s , McGavock Pike, Nashville, Tenn., 37214. U.S.A.

Hydrofoil stabilizers have intrigued me ever since reading about D r . M o r wood's JEHU, but 1 owned a 17 ft foldboat (decked canoe) for a year before
it occurred to me to try converting it into a hydrofoil stabilized sailboat.
Since then, Norris Van Gelderen (a M i a m i , Florida canoeing-sailing friend
and correspondent) and I have tried 3 different foil configurations on two
decked canoes and one Canadian canoe, with excellent results.
Hydrofoil stabilizers proved to be almost as easy to make as leeboards
(though a little more bunglesome to transport). We used 1 x 8 (J i n
7.\)
pine boards, dressing them with a draw-knife, plane and sander to the foil
section given on page 6 1 .
Joints
were
made with screws and
glue, reinforced with fibreglass. A I J in x 2J in cross beam was used
between the foils, variously but securely fastened to the several hulls. A
pair of door hinges made a convenient attachment, as the foils could be
removed by pulling the hinge pins, and adjusted by shimming between the
hinge plates.

The full history o f our various trials would be boring, but results were
always good enough to encourage further efforts. A t first, 1 had so little
faith in foils that 1 put styrofoam floats on top of each f o i l . The float,
dragged so much that it was difficult to get up enough speed for the foils to
take over, in strong winds. The foil configuration (1) was hard to tack, as
it did not give as good a pivot as do leeboards (the long straight keel o f the
foldboat and its small rudder didn't help). Foil configuration (2) didn't have
as good stability as (1), (3) proved best. A 15 ft rigid decked canoe with a
little keel rocker and a deeper side mounted rudder just behind the cockpit
proved much better, also. However, a straight keel canoe with foil (3) wifi
usually tack satisfactory, i f a foil is kept immersed during the whole operation
i.e. flipping quickly from one side to the other.
We were interested in comfortable sailing, with as little interference as
possible with our canoe's suitability for paddling. Anyone who wants speed
can certainly get it w i t h a sailing canoe, and with hydrofoils, more speed with
less hiking athletics! A n y canoe can carry at least 50 per cent more sail area
with foils than with leeboards, and will be easier to sail. too. A very narrow
canoe would be harder to keep upright in a calm than in a good breeze!
I ' d suggest a Beam to Length ratio 1 : 6 or more. M a x i m u m foil beam of
2/3 Length seems about right.
136

A l l in all, I have been highly pleased w i t h sailing canoes, and I wish I had
discovered them years ago; I've missed a lot o f good sailing because I hadn't!
They can be lighter, less complicated, easier to transport and launch, anywhere, anyhow, than any sailboat 1 have had any experience with. ( M y
foldboat travelled over 2,000 miles on the r o o f o f my car, complete w i t h foils
and a 65 sq ft sailing rig, and sailed and paddled on many interesting bodies
of water). Even with leeboards, a properly rigged sailing canoe seems less
tippy than a paddling canoe and sails surprisingly well. W i t h foils, a sailing
canoe seems almost as stable as an ordinary sailboat and can sail much better
than the leeboard equipped sailing canoe.
The possibilities of hydrofoil stabilized sailing canoes are not necessarily
Hmited to small craft. I n larger sizes, they could be made self-righting, and
much more easily and surely than cats. The foils could then be mounted a
bit deeper, as might be desirable, though the weather foils should be out o f
the water for windward work. Foils on larger canoes could be arranged to
pivot on a bearing, with a spring to hold them i n proper position. This
would make them less vulnerable to damage.
I do not know whether hydrofoil stabilized canoes can be designed that w i l l
beat the best cats, size for size; probably not. However, for a given amount
of money, a considerably longer canoe could be built, which would give the
canoe quite an edge. A hydrofoil stabilized canoe has several advantages
over cats and trimarans, not the least of which is that they can be rather
better looking!
To help others convert ordinary canoes into sailing canoes, (with leeboards
or with hydrofoil stabilizers), I have prepared a set of plans, showing 5 rigs,
with optional j i b , giving sail areas of from 30 to 131 sq ft. The short-masted
luff spar Bermudian rig is featured (as being one o f the most suitable for a
light canoe) and directions are given for 1 piece solid or hollow masts. These
plans are S3.75 postpaid, by first class mail i n the U.S., or by printed paper
rate elsewhere.

The A Y R S Cruising Y a c h t Design C o m p e t i t i o n 1966

This was a competition whose entries were to be sailing models o f full sized
yachts, the model being limited to 36 i n i n length and 500 sq in i n sail area.
There were some other rules such as limiting the mast height and requiring
I lb of internal weight and 6 in of headroom. The modelling had to be
realistic.
There was some doubt at first i f the trials would be valid. However, we
were assured that, i f the wind speed was suitably "scaled" we would get a
valid comparason.
The T r i a l s
These took place on Sunday, A p r i l 3rd, 1966 at the Round Pond, Kensington
Gardens, London. There were 2 trimarans, 2 catamarans, 4 single hulled
boats and G. F. H . Singleton's buoyant foil-stabilized craft, whose photograph
is shown here. I n the races in winds of 10 mph, gusting to 14 m p h corresponding to winds of 34 mph gusting to 48 mph, M r . Singleton's model won
two races. A very neat trimaran made by D o n a l d Maclachlan won t w o
others. A t a single "sail o f f " the Maclachlan trimaran won the competition.
137

G. F. H. Singleton's hydrofoil

FOILER

T h e Singleton Poller
The photograph shows the beautifully made main h u l l with the accommodation we required, the rigid cross beam and foils. The foils were o f
" O g i v a l " section, of semi-eUiptical plan form, high aspect ratio and a few
degrees o f "toe-in". The dihedral was 45. There was some buoyancy i n
the foil which produced good stability when the boat was not moving.
Performance
We all thought that the Singleton FOILER
was the most stable o f a l l the
boats i n the very strong winds. I t was capsized by 20 m p h gusty winds,
corresponding to winds of 68 m p h but behaved perfectly i n our trials. Selfsteering was good, too. Comparison should be made w i t h Gerald H o l t o m ' s
models near the end o f this book.

138

CHAPTER X I I
October, 1966
L e t t e r f r o m : D o n a l d J. N i g g

7924, Fontana, Prairie Village, Kansas, U.S.A.

Dear Sir,
Y o u will recall that we corresponded on the subject of hydrofoil sail boats
in the Spring o f 1963. Y o u were k i n d enough to send me quite a bit o f
helpful information on the general subject. As you can see from the photograph enclosed, my experiments have been reduced to successful practice.
After due consideration o f what had been done in the field, I decided to do
something a little different than other experimenters had attempted, in-so-far
as I know.

Don Nigg's Flying hydrofoil

The idea o f a front steering three point suspension system began to emerge
as a challenge early i n the study. Iceboaters shifted to this approach some
years ago with good success. The two obvious advantages are first, the better
weight distribution among the three support points where the skipper must
sit i n the rear, as he must, to see his sails; and second, the weight of the
skipper provides a restoring moment against heeling even when he is sitting
on the centre line of the craft. I n the case o f the rear steering three point
suspension, he is sitting on the fulcrum and it is difficult to even hike out to
make use o f his weight. The most formidable design problem in the front
139

steering approach is the pitch stability and the pitchpole moment o f the sail
thrust vector. A solution to this was finally worked out on paper and it seems
to be proving out i n tests. This solution appears to be unique, and is the
subject of a patent disclosure at this time. Perhaps a contribution to the art
has been made on this point.
The boat, in its first form, flew brifly during the end of the 1964 saifing
season. Bow wave problems made it advisable to modify the shape o f the
front portion of the floats. In the Spring of 1965 the boat was again launched
with this one major change. The transition from displacement niode to
planing mode to hydrofoiling mode was now smooth and quite satisfactory.

EXOCOETUS

hydrofoil frame and sail

141

The boat took off quite readily and seemed to be running fine. On the t h i r d
time up it was necessary to make a rather sharp turn upwind to avoid an
obstruction. The strain in torque on the front end was too much and the
whole front section literally twisted off. As the nose dropped, it put the
rear foils in negative attitude and this tore the rear cross-beam apart. The
thing came to rest in three distinct pieces! A whole new frame was necessary.
The new frame was not ready until the 1966 sailing season. This time all
stresses were calculated and a safety factor provided. The first frame was
strong enough at the outset, but after modifying the floats, the attempt to
regain the original weight resulted in the removal of too much material and
it was just too weak for the high stresses developed in these boats. I might
note here that the original foil design and sail design were unchanged in all
this. Only the frame was affected.
The photograph was taken early in May this year, and represents one o f
dozens of successful flights. I n this particular picture, the craft is slowing
down for a landing in a cove and is probably going between 21 and 15 knots
judging from the height above the water. The original design figures were
set up for normal operating speeds in the 20 to 30 knot range. A t this speed
the boat is a foot or more higher above the water than in this picture. A t
25 knots, the calculated rise is 30 in from the rest position. Not visible in
the picture is a 90 Vee foil on the front strut that is completely submerged
in this picture.

Mrs. Nigg with foils

The front foils visible in the picture will rise completely free of the water
and the high speed foil supports the front end at full operational speed. I t
has a i span of 16 in and a chord of 2 | i n . It is made o f a l u m i n i u m , while
all other foils are of oak or mahogany. The rear foils are 5 ft long and taper
for the bottom 3 ft to a 3 in chord at the tips. They have a H i i n chord at
142

Bow view of frame

the root. The total foil area is about 11 sq ft to give the realtively low take
off speed of 6i kts, calculated. This velocity can be achieved i n a 12 k n o t
wind.
After the floats leave the water, the drag curve actually has a negative slope
between 6J and 12 knots resulting in very fast acceleration. This is achieved
by virtue of the fact that the design provides for foil area reduction and foil
angle of attack (drag) improvement that overcompensate for the v- term in
the drag equation in this velocity range. The velocity term begins to predominate, and at 24 knots the theoretical hydrodynamic drag is again that
at take off. See what has happened? We have a mathematical model that
will go 24 knots in a 12 knot wind. This is why 1 had to build it to see what
it would do. The sail thrust exceeds the drag throughout this range. Y o u
can't argue with this because all sail calculations were based on the curves i n
your very good book on the subject! As a further tribute to this efficient
little sail based on your work, yesterday the boat got off the water with t w o
adults aboard. (Gross weight 510 lbsreally too much for any safety factor
in the stress analysis).

Statistics for
LOA

19 ft

EXOCOETUS:
Beam

16 ft

Weight 214 lbs

F o i l sections, N A C A 66-S209 and plano-convex, 45 dihedral.

Foil loading, 400 Ibs/sq ft at 20 knots.
Sail 85 sq ft, 20 ft sleeve luff, 7 ft foot, loose footed, full battens, 6 oz c o t t o n homemade.
Thank you for your encouragement.
143

L e t t e r f r o m : Paul A s h f o r d

Holly Lodge, Strumpshaw, Norwich N O R 77Z

Dear Sir,
October 1966
TRIPLE
SEC, which I had at Weir W o o d in 1964 (see A Y R S N o . 52)
is now sailing with a single outrigger 10 ft x 10 in x 10 in with Edmond
Bruce's inclined foil on the float. The main hull and float are about 7 f t
apart, centreline to centreline, with Bermudian sloop rig on the main hull
centreline.

TR;PL SECbow lifted

So far, she has been sailed on only four occasions. On the first two sails,
there was a strong and gusty wind and she was reefed. On the second day,
we had one sail with the foil off the float, using the centreboard I put in the
main hull last year. This showed the inclined foil to be worth a lot more in
stability than a crew sitting well out. In fact, the effect is quite uncanny.

Bruce foil to weatherbow depressed

144

Generally, I think she is greatly improved over last year's trimaran configuration and, when a few teething troubles have been ironed out, I think
she will be very fast.
Handling is good. She is very light on the helm on either tack. Tacking
toward the float is very easy, the main hull sailing round the float making a
lot of ground on the turn and starting the new tack without loss o f speed.
The opposite turn, in which the float swings around the main hull, can be
accomplished with certainty i f t h e j i b is kept aback but she seems to lose most
of her way, which has to be regained on the start of the new tack. I intend
shifting the mast toward the float, which 1 think may improve this.
I hope to be able to attend Weir W o o d this year, by which time we should
be getting more tuned up.
f

Foil to leeward

The Cruiser possibilities seem most attractive. Congratulations to E d m o n d

Bruce on what I think will prove a great breakthrough and my thanks to you
for publishing the good news.

TR/PLE SEC

The photographs
These show the line o f action of the foil meeting the mast: the waves from the
hull and outrigger intersection and the way the hull is depressed, when to
leeward and lifted when to weather so that the forefoot is clear o f the water.
146

Another view of the foilthe working position

The foil is pivoted in a bolt through the outrigger keel member, and restrained
from wringing the bolt by timbers which hook over its top edge at the sheer.
While easier to construct, Paul thinks that this arrangement produces more
drag than would arise from the slot i f the foil were housed internally in the
outrigger like a normal centreboard.
Ed. Further trials described on pages 159-161.
Letter f r o m : David A . Keiper

October, 1966

Dear Sir,
I have my hydrofoil sailing yacht design under construction now. I ' m i n
the midst of planking it, and expect to be trying it out sometime this fall on
San Pablo-San Francisco Bay, and the rougher waters outside the Golden
Gate.
It wasn't until May that I had a particular design that appeared to satisfy
the many requirements of such a yacht. In addition to designing a foil system
that should give a lift/drag ratio of 14 or 15 at take-off, I had to work out a
rigid but lightweight method of construction, and an improved sail r i g .
The craft is 31 ft long overall, and I ' m expecting a total displacement of
3000 lbs, including two persons and their supplies. Calculations indicate
that a 13 knot wind will be required to become fully foilborne. Lacking that
wind, the boat can be operated as an efficient trimaran by retracting the foils.
The abbreviated pontoons are located forward of amidships and serve for
initial stability and for structural fastening points for shrouds, bow foil and
lateral stabilizing foils.
The aluminium foils have a 6 in chord length, and will be set w i t h m i n i m u m
dihedral of 30=. The bow foil will span the w i d t h o f the boat and will thus
have a very high aspect ratio. I t will be set for a fairly high lift coefficient
at the take-off speed of 12 knots. The rotatable stern foil-rudder combination
147

Framing of

WILUWAW

will have lift coefficients considerably less than the bow foil, thus giving
submerged foil stability at the lower speeds. Stern foil lift is distributed
lower than that for the bow foil, such that as speed picks up, the craft leans
forward to reduce lift coefficients to proper values at high speeds. Lateral
foils will be inverted 'Ts' with dihedral to oppose the extreme side forces
encountered.
I have no plans for incidence control of the foils on this craft. I ' m afraid
of gadgetry at sea, my yachting experience winning out over my "physicist"
propensities. Longitudinal stability calculations indicate that sail pitching
moment is no problem. Fresh storm waves could turn out to be a problem
if one runs straight downwind. However, I've put considerable reserve
buoyancy in the bow in order to counteract negative incidence that might
occur on the bow foil. Normally, one would tack going d o w n w i n d to get
optimum performance. The highest cruising speeds would be obtained w i t h
the true wind just aft of the beam, and the boat synchronized with the waves.
I ' m planning on a sloop r i g with loose-footed mainsail to allow camber
control, and to get hard driving force from the lowest portion of the mainsail.
The mainsail will be set close to the wide, clean and uncluttered deck to get
maximum efficiency.
I enclose a photograph (bottom view) of the hull construction. Curved
frame members and planking are of } in plywood. Angle blocks spaced
every 6 in along the frames fasten frames and planking together.
Bottom and
transom w i l l be o f i in plywood. There will be a thin fibreglass skin over
the whole boat.
By the next issue 1 hope to be able to report on its performance. See
pages 152 and 244
148

A METHOD OF USING FULLY IMMERSFD H Y D R O FOILS W I T H O U T M O V I N G P A R T S

by R. R. A . Bratt, M.A., A.M.I.Mech.E.
Before describing what has seemed to me a useful way to utilise hydrofoils
it will be well to state briefly the principles involved.
The dynamic lift of hydrofoils is used to greatly reduce the wetted area
and water disturbance of a craft. The reduced resistance makes possible the
use o f much lower power or an increase o f speed or both.
The requirements of a hydrofoil system are that the boat travels parallel
to the mean surface of the water in its speed range, and that it is stable, i.e.
the boat must not hunt, or porpoise or suddenly dive i f the t r i m is disturbed.
There are two fundamental types of hydrofoil: surface breaking and totally
immersed.
Surface breaking foils follow the surface of the water by rising as speed is
increased so that a smaller lift area remains immersed at higher speed.
Totally immersed foils have potential advantages of a smoother ride and
less disturbance of the water surface since the lifting surface itself does not
anywhere disturb the surface. The lift of a fully immersed foil is precisely
comparable to an aeroplane wing and the convenient way to keep the lift
constant with varying speed is to change its angle o f incidence. The angle
of incidence can be changed as in an aeroplane by tilting the whole craft or
by just tilting the foil.
To maintain constant depth just below the surface of the water a surface
sensing device is required. This is commonly in the form of a sort of water
ski which is linked by a mechanism to the foils or control foils. A more or
less complicated set of moving parts is involved.
Moving parts are not necessary, however, i f the angle of incidence of the
load carrying fully immersed foil is controlled by a fixed surface breaking
control foil. I successfully tried this in 1960. M y eight foot dinghy with me
in it towed by a motor boat rode above the surface of the water at about
12 mph. I cannot say that I felt very safe, but that is presumably a matter
of development work and not inherent weakness. I n any case the dinghy
had no rudder or other moving control at all.
The unit consisted of a pair of main foils each 9 in
24 in set at a dihedral
of 10 or so each. These were mounted each on a single stalk near its centre.
The two foils side by side, w i t h a gap between them, but equivalent to an
aeroplane wing. A front surface breaking V foil acted as stabilizer.
The front foil 3 in x 10 swg aluminium cambered and formed into a flat
bottomed 60 V with 18 in sides, and 4 in b o t t o m .
To perform more than my crude experiment it would be necessary either
to fit a rudder behind the main foils or make the stabilizer rotatable as a
front rudder. I t is possible that ailerons would be an asset for turning
especially as the centre of gravity is inevitably so far above the lifting surfaces,
but i f the device is usable it would seem a retrograde step. Careful design
should make them unnecessary.
A word on stability. A n aerofoil or fully immersed hydrofoil can carry
a stabilizer either behind or i n front. The fundamental requirements for
stability when the stabilizer is behind as i n an aircraft are (a) that the stabilizer
149

has a small negative angle o f incidence and that the centre o f gravity precedes
the centre o f pressure (b) that the moment o f the stabilizer be large relative
to the moment of initia of the craft. When the stabilizer is in front o f the
main foils as in our hydrofoil system the angle of incidence o f the stabilizer
must be greater than the angle of incidence o f the main foils, (b) holds good
and of course the stabilizer must be powerful enough to cope w i t h the changing
position of the centre of pressure on the main foil as i t changes speed and
angle, and w i t h the changing position o f the centre of gravity i f the passengers
move.

Consider the mechanics o f the hydrofoil system proposed. A t rest the V

shaped front stabilizing foil lies fully immersed in the water at (for the sake
of argument) 5 or 6 incidence, the main foil at zero or perhaps 2 incidence.
The centre of gravity is slightly in front of the main foil so that only a small
load is carried on the front foil which has the double task o f stabilizer and
surface senser. As the boat gathers speed first the front foil begins to lift
because it is lightly loaded and at a larger angle o f incidence. As it rises it
causes the main foil to present a larger angle to the water, and the main foil
will begin to lift the boat from the water. As the speed increases so the main
foil w i l l rise. A t the same time the front foil w i l l cease to rise or rise less
fast as both foils turn to a smaller angle of incidence. I t w i l l be seen that
the front foil will have a more nearly constant running depth regardless o f
speed, while the main foil w i l l run nearer the surface at high speed and deep
at low speed. The effect o f movement of centre of gravity w i l l be to make
the craft run higher or lower in the water. In very short or frequent waves
the front foil w i l l be back in a trough without raising the bow o f the boat.
I n longer waves the bow w i l l tend to follow the contour o f the wave but
flatter.
As it does so the main foil will change incidence slightly without
having time to raise the boat. In large waves the craft w o u l d follow the
shape of the sea.
As any aeroplane modeller knows, whether the system is inherently stable
or whether it dives or porpoises depends on correct proportions and there are
known rules to follow.
I doubt i f this system would be readily adopted for sailing boats because
it will not accommodate big variations of fore and aft overturning moments.
I can visualise some potentially useful variations and adaptions.
150

T h e R e w a r d s of a successful Flying H y d r o f o i l
October, 1967
These are great. Cheap, hght, saiHng boats with small sail areas should
travel at from 24 to 40 or possibly even 60 knots. Atlantic crossings should
be possible in a few days, even to windward with such speeds and efficiency.
The drawing shows a concept of a 60 knot "Trans-ocean" hydrofoil sailing
craft with buoyant, low aspect ratio foils. A half-scale version w o u l d have a
buoyancy of 840 lbs and, i f made at 200 lbs or less w o u l d carry two people.
L O A (excluding cabin)
50 ft
Beam O A
30ft
Buoyancy
3 tons
Sail area
300 sq ft
Each float-foil is an equilaterial triangle of 14 ft sides and 14 in maximum
thickness, which gives a buoyancy o f one ton. A l l three foils slope up to
leeward, the aft ones at a dihedral o f 45, the forward one at 60 from the
horizontal. On putting about, the foils flap over for the new tack in the

manner suggested by the late Commander Fawcett many years ago. The
rudder is placed at the aft end o f the forward foil whose dihedral angle o f
60' should let it work well.
The sail is loose-footed and sheeted to the cabin side to give the correct
shape. The platform at the base of the cabin partially prevents the b o o m
eddy and acts as a " W a l k way."
L e t t e r f r o m : David Keiper

December 1966
Dear Sir,
Your poem, "The Downhearted Boat-Builder" ( A Y R S 57), stirred me to
renewed efforts to complete the 31 ft flying hydrofoil (page 147), now named
WILLIWAW.
It cheered me up to think that I've had less surface area to
plank, fibreglass, and paint than a standard trimaran, and also no built-up
cabin structure. 1 enclose a photograph. The hull weighs only 1,300-1,400
lbs, but is extremely rigid because of its proportions and its doubly-curved
plywood. Practically all of its weight contributed structurally, including
inside shelves and benches. Headroom inside is 5 ft plus a little. The living
quarters appear spacious, since they run the full length and width.

Dave Keiper's WILUWAW

being built

I have sailed the craft once so far, in a light air, without hydrofoils. I t
balances and manoeuvers well. However, it is so easy to get confused about
wind direction, because it generates its own wind going upwind, and kills its
wind downwind. When a Force 3 wind is generated close-hauled, with
380 sq ft of sail, the craft heels about 15% and the underbelly adjacent to the
leeward pontoon begins "planing." (Normally, a leeward hydrofoil would
prevent such a heel.) This planing effect is interesting, because it seems to
stiffen the boat up against further heel. It makes me wonder i f a racing
trimaran could use to advantage such a pontoon planing effect after it has
heeled to a certain angle.
Hydrofoils will be fabricated for WILUWAW
next month (Jan. '67).
The hydrofoils will add 400 lbs to the craft, but this isn't much more than
the weight saved by not having large pontoons.
152

HYDROFOILS FOR A R A C I N G
Devised by J . Robert W i l l i a m s

CATAMARAN

P.O. Box 84, Coconut Grove, Florida, 33233, U.S.A.

Here, we have a unique apphcation o f hydrofoils to a sailing craft. In light

winds, the boata PHOENIX
catamaransails quite normally but when the
saihng speeds increase up to and beyond a V / \ of 4, an inverted T hydrofoil
is put down on the lee side of 'he boat to absorb the total capsizing moment
of the sail force. This results in increased speed and a smooth ride because
the boat is lifted above most of the waves.
The foils
There are two of these (one for each tack) mounted near the bows. Each is
an inverted T type with a foil area of only \q ft mounted on struts which
can weathercock to the water flow. The angle o f attack is set by hand but

Phoenix Catamaranfoil retracted

need not be continually watched. It is usually set at about 1 0 \h allows

for a downward pitch of the bows to that extent without negative incidence.
There is no lateral force taken by the foil because of its turning to the water
flow and the normal centreboards are used.
Advantages
The original intent of this experiment was to gain an increase in performance,
primarily in the upper speed range through:
1 Reduction of wetted surface.
2 Drastic trim change to promote dynamic lift on the aft hull sections.
3 Retaining the original windward and ghosting performance by having a
fully retractable system.
Advantages not foreseen were:
153

4 Reduction in spray (virtually no spray at full lift).

5 Eliminating o f lurching, surging forward motion caused by blue water
contacting the main cross beam and trampoline.
6 A b i l i t y to span or leap across troughs and operate in rougher water at
higher speeds in greater comfort even at only partial liftout.
Disadvantages
1 Difficulties in docking (not manoeuvring) w i t h the long overhang o f the
foils i n the retracted position.
2 The bows are protected from damage at the expense of the strut-foil j o i n t .

William's foil, retracted

The angle of a t t a c k of t h e foils

The foils shown in the photographs (lee one only) provide partial lift-out
from 17 to 23 mph. Between 25 and 28 mph, the lift o f the operational foil
is such that it can be flown i f not properly set. The system is somehwat
self-correcting since a portion o f the load is carried by the h u l l and, as the
stern rises, this serves to decrease the angle of attack o f the foil.
Sailing t r i a l s
In use, these foils become operational at wind velocities in excess o f 11 to 12
mph.
They then become a reaching or running necessity.
It has been found best to retract both foils in light airs or when going to
windward. A t the windward mark, the lee hull for the next reach or r u n is
selected and that foil only is dropped. The pitch control is set positive at
10 or so. As the boat falls off" the wind, the speed increases and the lee bow
starts lifting. The wetted surface is now a bit less and the speed increase
154

The Williams foil lifting the lee bow

continues. A manual reduction in tlie foil pitch to offset the induced pitch
caused by the high attitude of the bow. As the bow is lifting out, the heeling
force is predictable until the boat starts sliding off in a planing attitudeat
which time, the weather hull flops down and the heeling force diminishes as
the speed increases.
When top speed has just been reached, the pitch control should be adjusted.
The foil should be set as fine as possible while still supporting the bow but
should not allow it to start dropping. Some extra incidence is used for
practical reasons since, i f a puff should squeeze the bow down and the pitch
control was too fine, the foil attack angle might go negative with predictable
results.
The weather hull has not yet been flown with the heeling force in the full
planing state. In fact, since only the lee foil is used, the boat sometimes runs
with a weather list.

Foil in sailing position

155

Construction
The foils, struts etc. are made from light alloy. Owing to the speeds obtained,
several parts failed from the unexpected loading. The foils can be lowered
or retracted at 10 mph.
Summary
M r . Williams has produced great benefits for the high speed sailing o f his
PHOENIX
catamaran by the use of a foil outside the lee bow. These not
only produce increase in speed but almost complete freedom from spray.
The system may be of great benefit to any racing cat where the rules allow it.

L e t t e r f r o m : Clayton O . Feldman
2271, Constitution Drive, San Jose, California, 95124.

Dear Sir,

December 1966

1 could not resist sending you some photos o f my second trimarana little
eight footermostly to show that the small tris can be pretty (as I think this
one is) as well as functional. They show the form fairly clearly. M y wife
and I made the sail, and this, our second sail-making venture also, was
considerably better that the first one we made. The whole thing can be put

Clayton Feldman's low A . R . foils

156

c A. reimnN.y^D.

157

together in fifteen minutes and the main hull is easily manhandled by myself
from cartop to the trolley.
She sails very nicely and a bit faster than the popular eight foot " E l T o r o "
prams so ubiquitous in this area, in spite o f the fact that her small size make
her very weight sensitive.
She has one interesting feature in that, while she may heel a few degrees in
a crisp breeze, a sharp pulT tends to make her sit up squarely rather than
heel further, her low aspect ratio hydrofoil fins apparently doing the work.
The fins also substitute for a daggerboard, the lack of which seems to be no
great loss, as her pointing ability is just as good as the centreboard dinghies
on the reservoirand besides, in that tiny hull it's either a daggerboard case
or me!

Clayton Feldman's foil-trimaran

LOA
8 ft
Floats L O A
6 ft
Beam O A
5 ft 10 in
Floats beam
9 in
Beam, hull
2 ft 0 in
Foils
18 in long
Beam, hull at L W L
17 in
Foils
9 in deep
Beam, hull at bottom
12 i n
Foils dihedral
45
Weight
65 lbs
Sail area
38 sq ft
Cost 50.00
The January issue of the publication was superb. I can hardly wait to
start designing an overnighter-daysailer for the Bay. I hope that the membership list so thoughtfully supplied will lead to regional meetings in this area.
158

CHAPTER X I I I
TRIPLE

SEC. W I T H

LOW

by Paul Ashford

ASPECT

RATIO

FOILS

October, 1967

Holy Lodge, Strumpshaw, Norwich. N O R 772

This season's experiment arises from last year's trials with a single Bruce f o i l
and 10 ft long outrigger which are reported on pages 144-147. Further
sailing fully confirmed the early impressions of the value o f the foil and I a m
sure that this configuration was a considerable improvement on the original
trimaran and is well worth further attention, particularly for a light and
exciting racing craft.
However, I was left doubtful whether the single outrigger would provide
a safe design for a larger cruising boat. When sailing w i t h the float to
windward, stability was provided partly by the action of the foil and partly
by float and crew weight. When the wind was strong enough to lift the
float, about half of the foil would rise slowly from the water without significant
loss of foil stabilizing, but beyond this point, the foil would let go suddenly
and although this has not yet led to complete capsize, it came fairly close
to it on occasions.
Furthermore, I felt that the foil when fully immersed was unnecessarily
large and wasteful of wetted surface, but with the single outrigger to w i n d ward, one needs some spare foil area so that the float can begin to lift before
the foil lets go of the water. The answer seemed to be to return to the
trimaran configuration using a smaller foil on each float, w i t h the added gain
that foil action would on both tacks reduce hull displacement drag.
In fairness to Edmond Bruce, I must admit that I d i d not fully follow his
design set out clearly on page 123 which requires that for complete
stabilizing, the line of thrust of the foil should pass through the centre of
efl'ort of the sail plan. On TRIPLE
SEC, this line o f thrust passes nearly
3 ft below this point. This was obtained with an overall beam o f 9 ft,
neglecting 1 ft 6 in seat projection. To obtain full foil stability, this beam
over both hulls would have had to be increased to 11 ft 9 i n . This seemed
rather excessive on a 14 ft boat. Since 1 did not try i t , I cannot say whether
the general qualities of the boat would have been impaired by i t .
This year, I am using the original pair of asymmetrical floats 8 ft long but
with an increase in cross-beam length from 8 ft to 10 ft, and the floats placed
a foot further forward. The drawing shows the general arrangement.
The
foils are hinged to the float bottoms and supported by variable length struts
so that dihedral can be varied, and, by insertion of packings between the aft
crossbeam and float, an angle of attack can be given.
F r o m rather limited trials, the impression has been gained that the best
all round results are obtained with a dihedral o f 45 and the foils angled u p
about 2. The actual angle o f attack is increased by leeway.
Reduced
dihedral brings the foils nearer the surface and this produces considerable
surface disturbance at fairly low speeds. On occasions, a steep, almost
159

Foil

H^;,kt

of

C.ntrt

I05

[v

of

^. it.

Sloof>

i f . F . reifc^

t>-Mcnsions

Effort.
ritj.

to

(.2

(t.

\
AssumrJ
thrust
foils

tines
for

t?/
yartcus

sftowrt.

sf^rut. -

Float

'A

CB.

. Bruci
|^_^r</ct
^
t Ai/-ect

PLE

Present
Pf,c

Fcik

SEC' - FOIL

trials.
ytl.,ut

thr^it

fojl_as
foil
Beam
ficots.

TRIALS

160

lit,

UstzJ
(or

f Beom

no AttAr,;.

3-0"
Btom

lO'-O
IS^o~>

IV'- i'

?/

ll'-5'

breaking wave has appeared over the rear edge o f the foil at speeds of 2 or 3
knots, but the wave pattern improves as speed increases.
Two different foil profiles are being tried. Both appear reasonably effective
for windward sailing without using the centreboard. The leeway angle is
judged to be somewhat greater but not excessive w i t h the lower aspect ratio
foil. I f the lower aspect ratio foils were fitted on both sides, this would give
the advantage that the boat could be beached on the centre hull with a fixed
foil dihedral of 45, and also that the windward foil would lift clear o f the
water at a smaller angle of heel.
The floats are on the small side for a trimaran relying on float buoyancy
for stability and a very useful increase in stability is given by the foils. The
trials confirm that low aspect ratio foils do w o r k but for windward work,
fuU foil stabilizing cannot be expected without a considerable increase in
beam as shown in the drawing. The present arrangement probably roughly
doubles the stability obtained from the given float buoyancy compared with
the use of a centreboard. Some fast " p l a n i n g " has been enjoyed on a close
reach.
The struts, which are not free to weathercock to the water flow, have been
given a sfight angle of attack to try to avoid a capsizing moment. This seems
to work fairly well, but the presence of the strut tends to confuse judgement
of the foil performance. 1 think they must add to drag as they throw up a
good deal of wake and spray. The starboard lower aspect ratio foil has this
week been glued rigidly to the float so that the strut can be dispensed w i t h .
I am looking forward to trying this out very soon.
The boat handles and tacks well but a disappointing feature with cruiser
development in mind is that it heaves-to badly, swinging uneasily back and
forth, pivoting on the leeward foil and making a great deal o f leeway. Lowering the centreboard corrects this behaviour but it is unfortunate that it seems
necessary to provide a centreboard for heaving-to which is definitely not
required for sailing.

L O W A S P E C T R A T I O B R U C E FOIL

CRUISER

by Robert D. Perkins
I have been experimenting with various types of foil stabilizers since 1960
using 3 to 4 ft scale sailing models as test vehicles. I n the Fall o f 1962,
D . N . McLeod, a brilliant, young engineer from Brockville, Ontario, suggested
that 1 try out what have become known as Bruce Foils. I t d i d not occur
to either of us that this type of stabilizer would work i f it were kept to windward. M y first model, therefore, was a 3 ft proa. I tested it in January at
5 below zero in a plastic wading pool in my garden and despite clouds o f
steam and cold winds, etc. it proved a qualified success.
The following summer, a larger 50 in model was built. The stabilizer was
simply an elongated foil drawn out to form a shallow triangle 32 in long and
8 in deep. This model refused to capsize even in gusty winds o f approximately 35 miles per hour and moved very quickly.
161

Robert Perkin's Bruce foil cruiser mode!

I then started construction of a full size, 23 ft day sailer which was to be

used to develop a larger cruiser-racer.
Before I had completed the main hull
Edmond Bruce's lucid article was published. In my opinion, his was the
most important and significant paper prepared to date by any member o f the
Societya real breakthrough. After reading M r . Bruce's paper, I decided
to abandon the proa form and to develop a boat which would tack in the
conventional manner. The practical advantages of low aspect ratio foils I
had been using soon became apparent. They are stronger; they are more
easily attached to the outrigger beams; they draw less water; they can be made
weedless; they do not have to be adjusted fore and aft on opposite tacks;
they are more easily retracted in shallow water. M y fifth model, 40 i n long
carrying 600 sq in of sail, was exhibited at our annual A Y R S Club meeting
at the Barrie Yacht Club last year. I n breezes of five to ten knots, it pointed
very high and moved so quickly that several members who set out after it i n
catamarans and trimarans were unable to catch it. I t sailed out o f sight and
was lost permanently.

The cruiser
The cruiser shown in the enclosed drawings is 38 ft long with a water line of
30 ft. I t displaces a little more than 4,000 lbs and carries 600 sq ft o f sail.

Construction
Half inch plywood is used throughout. The sides (five 4 ft
8ft sheets o f
plywood) have a constant width of 4 ft from stem to stern. The curved
bottom section is achieved by covering the flat floor with styrofoam which is,
in turn, covered w i t h fibreglass.
162

H u l l shape
The b o t t o m of this boat is shaped in accordance with current A Y R S theory
for o p t i m u m speed having a sharp, narrow bow and a broad partially i m mersed stern. The maximum beam at the water line is 32 in and the section
at the point is almost semi-circular. The long, high dory-like overhang
of the bow is designed to avoid bow burying at speed without slowing the boat.

Self-righting
The boat is self-righting on either tack and will bail itself almost empty
depending on the load carried.
163

Rig
A modified j u n k rig mounted ofl'-centre is to be used. This rig permits easy
handling of the 600 sq ft of sail and keeps the centre o f effort low (distance
between the centre line o f the boat and the centre line of the float is only
20 ft). The modifications to the j u n k rig which I will be testing over the
next month or so should overcome its unwillingness to go to windward.

Acconnmodation
There are two berths in a separate cabin at the rear o f the boat w i t h ample
locker space. I n the main cabin there is a hanging wet locker immediately
inside the entrance, a galley, seating for four people, a chart table, and an
inside helmsman's station with clear visibility forward. The cockpit which
is amidships is protected by a bulwark and is well above the surface o f the
water so that it should remain dry and comfortable in rough weather.

The stabilizer
The stabilizer shown is one of four which will be tested shortly on the 23 ft
boat. It is flat bottomed with its maximum buoyancy placed well forward.
Tests on all of the models indicated that the foil will be driven under in strong
winds in the few seconds before the boat gets under way when it is to leeward
unless there is ample buoyancy placed well forward. The flat bottomed
form has been chosen because it planes readily reducing resistance.

The foil, as indicated in the diagram, is retractable inwards. I n the retracted position it acts as a displacement form and it is hoped that i t will
develop some lift towards the port side o f the boat so that i n very light
conditions when the stabilizer is to leeward the foil may be kept completely
out of the water.
164

Conclusion
The cruiser is not, o f course, in its final form. The 23 ft boat is now complete
and in the next few months I will be running tests with various size foils.
The outrigger arms on this boat are completely adjustable and the mast may
be moved to any position so that it will be possible to predict exactly the
position and size o f all the components o f the stabilizing system on the
cruiser.

FOIL T R I M A R A N

Devised by H e n r y W. Nason
366, Farmingham Avenue, Plainville, Connecticut 06062, U.S.A.
Having first made a Polynesian outrigger, it was thought that the float was
not quite the perfect solution to stability. This led to the study o f hydrofoils
and all the problems o f stability i n general. The result was the usual conclusion that hydrofoils are the perfect solution for stability when underway
but some outrigged floatation was needed for static stability and i n very light
winds. The result of this line o f thought was a small float acting as a surface
senser for a fully submerged hydrofoil w i t h incidence control and retraction
out of the water for beaching and in light winds.
In practice, what has been achieved is trimaran stability in all strengths o f
wind with tiny floats and foils. The future possibility of making the craft
a fully flying hydrofoil is, however, a possibility.
Fig. 1 shows the principles involved. The float or floats are mounted on
pantograph arms with dashpot dampers to prevent too quick an action on
the foil and the rising and falling o f the float actuates the angle o f a ttack o f
the foil.
foil
supporting spar
pull
arm

float
supporting
spur

naln

hull
L.W.L.

nylon
stop cord

hlnfe points
Sid*
float

1 ^
" foil
- pivot
axis
Flgura 1 . - General arrangement of

vertical
c o n t r o l rod

damping
foil

parts

E x p e r i m e n t one
A 13 ft canoe has this arrangement mounted on one side only and this boat
sailed well on the very first test. I t will be seen from F i g . 1 that the foil will
stay horizontal on swinging the foil struts up aft, thus allowing retraction
while travelling.
165

Experiment No. I

Experiment t w o
Here, an AQUACAT
huW with no inherent stabihty was fitted with the float
and foil system on either side. However, the wing tip floats shown in the
photograph were not at first fitted and the foil incidence variation was only
5. There were four capsizes on the first trial and there was not even enough
stability when travelling slowly.

Experiment No. 2

The reason for these capsizes was not at first realized. I n experiment one,
the system was self adjustingmore heel pushed up the float and gave more
incidence to the foil. I n experiment two, the foils were set at angles to oppose
each other and the lee foil was not powerful enough to overcome the upsetting
angle of the weather f o i l . O n the second trial w i t h experiment two, a con166

tinuous t r i m adjustment and foil incidence angle indicator were added and,
with adjustment, the boat speeeded up and levelled out. N o more capsizes
were experienced but at zero speed, the boat heeled too easily and wing t i p
floats were added.

Experiment No. 2.

Adjusting the foil

Performance observations
1 The foils start giving stability at very low speeds.
2 Usual foil deflections were about 3. The foils were, however, larger than
the calculated necessary area which would have given 5 deflections. I n
speed boat wakes, the deflections were 7 to 8 with quite a bobbing o f
the float.

Experiment No. 2.
167

Coming about

3 I n severe wave conditions wiiichi caused the floats to bob, the boat was
quite steady, presumably due to the difference in frequency i n r o l l o f the
main hull and the float-foil system. The variations in foil attack must
have caused extra resistance and damping of their action would be of value.
4 Coming about was easy. Sufficient speed was always maintained to remain
foil borne in the sense that the tip floats never struck the water before full
speed was resumed on the opposite tack.
5 The boat sailed close hauled with good stability from 2 knots to the
strongest winds sailed (about 22 knots).

Summary
Hydrofoils are the most natural method of roll stabilization of a sailboat
since they are effective when you need them and are not particularly effective
when you don't. In contrast, the common methods of roll stabilization have
far too much stability margin at low boat speeds in light winds and have a
narrow reserve stability in strongest winds. However, a hydrofoil stabilized
boat must also have a specific amount of conventional stability which is
always there for transient conditions such as coming about, starting up and
slowing down.

KAXIMUM

USEABLE

ROLL

STABILIZING

MOMSNT

conTntlonal s a i l i n g
foil

stabilized

STS./IDY V;iKD SpnSD or S7E.\DY BOM sp;:r.D

168

craft

craft

Experiment No. 2.

Conventional Stability

L e t t e r f r o m : H e n r y W . Nason

Dear Sir,
Received your letter of February 4, and appreciate your consideration o f
the problem and have read the very helpful article in publication N o . 50. A
waterline beam to depth ratio of 4 : 1 will give me a roomy main hull and
at speed I should make up the 5 per cent loss with foil dynamic lift.
Trying to improve on an ancient art like sailing is a difficult thing, and i t
gives oneself respect for his predecessors. 1 seem to be continually making
starts and stops. It is not possible to completely evaluate all schemes which
come to mind either experimentally or theoretically and one must make many
decisions somewhat on intuition alone. 1 find I must now modify the write-up
I just sent to you a few weeks ago. A better arrangement of the components
appears possible. A l t h o u g h , I have been aware o f this arrangement for
some time, I had not modelled it and so could not fully evaluate it. A series
of photographs are enclosed of the model. It is not a working model. Sizes
are scaled to an 18 ft boat.
The strut will be enclosed in a slot cut in the aft end of the float. F o i l
actuation is the same in principle as before. Neglecting structural and weight
effects, the best position of both the foil and float is out as far as possible.
The farther the float is out the more effective is its buoyancy for c o m m o n
stabihty and the more favourable the relation between r o l l sensitivity and
height sensitivity. Also the farther out the foil is the smaller it can be. Thus
to mount the foil and strut in the inverted T arrangement and centred w i t h
the float is the best compromise. Placing the strut in a slot in the float w i l l
eliminate the wave drag of the strut and will result in less interference between
the main hull, the floats and the struts. The strut is less exposed to floating
objects. Since the slot is open to the rear there should be less fuss than w i t h
the conventional daggerboard or centreboard slot. The open slot w i l l allow
169

The Nason Foil Model

foil and strut removal from the water as before. A l t h o u g h , I will only be
able to lengthen my float from 6 ft to 8 ft, its centre o f buoyancy w i l l be
forward of the foil and will give a small measure of large wave anticipation.
This anticipation is hardly needed on such a small craft which is not flying,
but is more than before.
A t first thought, it might appear to be a disadvantage to have the float slot
moving w i t h respect to the strut. M y first thought would be that it would
wear away the strut and bind. However, I don't see why one could not take
advantage of this rubbing by installing a water lubricated flat damper. M y
son is buzzing about looking into this. Another benefit would be from a
load stand-point. The strut could support lateral forces on the float and
vice versa. They w o u l d become mutually self-supporting. There are many
plastics that may be suitable for a flat damper. There are floor tiles made o f
ashphalt and vinyl which can take a lot o f scuffing. A continual scraping
noise would be objectionable, but water is a very good lubricant and the
bottom part of the slot damper will always be immersed and possibly a proper
material would be quiet and give the required damping force.
The struts, foils and floats w i l l be a little more difficult to make. However,
the general appearance is much improved and the arrangement w i l l , I believe,
give superior performance.
Stoeberghlaan 16, Voorschoten, Holland
July 5, 1967

Letterfrom; O. Holtman

Dear Sir,
I n 1963, I intended to sail and built a boat. The first catamaran was
square box section, 12 ft long, weighed 300 lbs and had 100 sq ft o f sail.
Then, I found the A Y R S publications and I accepted the following ideas:
170

1
2
3
4

L / B ratio =^ 12 (Bruce).
5 A l u m i n i u m , expanded foam.
Unequal hulls ( M o r w o o d ) .
6 The Bruce foil.
Rotating mast.
7 B o o m vang.
Half-circle bottom.
8 Very sharp bow.
1 took an aluminium race-canoe, rounded the bottom w i t h foam and
covered it with glass fibre and polyester resin. I had two tubes 6 ft long and
laid them across the hull. To these tubes, 1 fitted two smaller tubes, also
6 ft long and, fitting snugly in each other, they made cross beams 11 ft long.
The thicker tubes protruded on both sides o f the hull and the stays were
fastened to the after one while the mast stood on the forward one . . . The
smaller tubes protruded only to port, thus making the craft a single outrigger

O. Holtman's Bruce foil boat

171

and to their ends, the 8 ft outrigger hull was attached. The small hull was
made by the "opening u p " system and had a 90 V form in the middle. The
bow was very sharp and the transom squared off. As published in A Y R S
No. 51 on page 66, the New Zealand M a o r i knew exactly the right dimensions.
M y heart bounced. M y mouth was dry, as I took the rudder and sheets.
After 100 yards, alone, I cried " H y doet het" which is D u t c h for " I t works."
Tacking was difficult and 1 replaced the tubes to put the mast 1 ft out o f
the middle of the hull towards the outrigger. On holiday in France, the
420's and the FLYING
JUNIORS
tried to catch me but I was faster. I was
helped with tuning and the results were flattering for the Maoris. When the
wind was more than force 4, I had to sit on the tubes to balance the boat.
I n the N o r t h Sea, I sailed against a SCHAKEL,
15 ft 7 in long, 30 per cent
more sail than my boat but weighing 300 lbs to my boat's 200 lbs. Again,
I was faster. I sailed very close hauled, thanks to the Bruce foil. The
effect of the foil holding the mast upright could not be measured by me.
I ' m convinced o f a few things.
1 The unequal hull is fastperhaps the fastest.
2 Building and tuning are easy.
3 The weight is low.
4 Taking apart takes a short time.
The canoe is too light for two persons so I ' l l change it for a SHEAR WA TER
hull. The sail area w i l l be 150 sq ft, the weight under 200 lbs. The mainsail
and j i b will have the same height and both will be loose footed. There will
be one boom from the clew o f the main sail to the tack o f the j i b and the clew
of the j i b will open automatically 9 in at the mast. I w i l l then have only
one sheet to turn the whole sail area and mast. There will be four stays to
the ends o f the cross-arms w i t h the mast standing between them with no
forestay. The mast w i l l stand on the gunwhale o f the
SHEARWATER
H u l l at the outrigger side.
Thank y o u for all the information and the pleasure o f reading.

P . B . K . 12 C a n o e w i t h H y d r o f o i l S t a b i l i z e r s

Designed and Built by P. Dearling and M. Sutton-Pratt

11, Vale Close, Strawberry Vale, Twickenham, Middlesex

Hull
Hull
Sail area
Total Beam
Total weight

17 ft 6 in Length
2 ft 6 i n Beam
85 sq ft
9 ft
175 lbs

FoilsIncidence 4
FoilsDihedral 45
Non-Adjustable

During the summer o f 1966 we decided to fit stabilizing foils to a standard

P.B.K.18 canoe hull and add approximately 85 sq ft o f sail.
A l l previous attempts to sail the boat had been w i t h a sail area o f about
25 sq ft and leeboards.
We got the idea o f foils from reading an article by M r . N . Van Gelderen
of M i a m i , U.S.A., who was at the time successfully using foils o f the Bruce
Clark " Y " type on a smaller but similar canoe. M a k i n g the foils was fairly
172

Paul Dearling's canoe with Bruce Clark foils

simple and we feel that any success we achieved with them must have been
due mostly to the excellent descriptions and sketches we received f r o m M r .
Van Gelderen.
W i t h the present foils and sitting-out "benches" (mounted above the side
decks) we feel that a sail area of between 120 and 140 sq ft could be carried
successfully. The present hull however is unsuitable for further development
and next year we hope to transfer the foils to a purpose-made hull and continue w i t h our experiments.
A n y advice or exchange of correspondence w o u l d be more than welcome.
173

Bow view

174

CHAPTER X I V
L e t t e r f r o m : Donald J . Nigg

October 1966

7924, Fontana, Prairie Village, Kans., U.S.A.

July 22, 1966

Dear D r . M o r w o o d ,
I n my last letter to you, Dec. 22, 1967, I indicated that construction had
started on a new monohull design for a flying hydrofoil. I t was to be a design
suitable for home construction and further development by others. This
craft was completed and launched in May o f this year. Unfortunately, five
weeks were lost early i n the tests due to a broken mast, but the boat is now
again operational.

Don N i g g doing 20 knots on a close reach

We have now accumulated enough sailing hours on this new boat to say
that it is performing pretty much as calculated. Several minor changes have
been worked into the designprimarily to improve the ease o f handling.
The final plans are now drawn up and are available. I have kept a file of the
persons who have written inquiring about plans over the past two years.
These persons have been notified directly as the plans are ready, w i t h their cost.
The same hydrodynamic principles demonstrated to be feasible by the
experiments with EXOCOETUS
(page 139) have been applied to
this new craft. These principles are dealt w i t h in depth i n the article " A
Sailing Hydrofoil Development" appearing in the A p r i l 1968 issue o f Mamne
Technology, a publication of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers. The big differences in the new craft concerns the structure.
Whereas EXOCOETUS
was an experimental platform supported by three
floats when at rest, the new design utilizes a monohull with a buoyant cross175

beam. This provides a number of practical advantages, and looked like the
way to go for establishing a development class. I t has been suggested that
such a development class might be called the " A y r s f o i l " class, and since
I haven't any better ideas, the name is alright with me. Unless a better idea
comes along, this is probably the class name that will appear on the plans.
Now for some details about the design. It was decided at the outset that
most persons who would want to build such a boat are undoubtedly already
small boat sailors, and probably own a dinghy with a mainsail in the range o f
100 to 150 sq ft. I f a basic hydrofoil design could be developed to give good
performance with this size sail, then experimenters could share the rigging
and sail with their existing boat and thereby drastically reduce the cost.
This brings the material cost down to between -SI50 and 8200, depending on

A broad reach with a moderate breeze

how fancy the builder wants to get. The model in the photographs is shown
with the sail and rigging from a Y-Flyer, which has a mainsail area o f 125
sq ft. The boat, less optional rigging and sail, weighed in at 266 lbs complete.
W i t h crew, Y-Flyer rigging, and Y-Flyer mainsail the gross weight was 477
lbs.
This is about 40 lbs more than the original objective and a little
cleverness in weight reduction by the builder would no doubt pay off i n
performance. The waterline length is 16 ft, and the cross-beam is 20 ft.
Total submerged foil area is 15-3 sq ft at take-off and 2 sq ft or less through
the design centre cruising range o f 20 to 30 knots.
The sealed hull is i in marine plywood with the skin carrying the torque
loads, and an internal structure coupled w i t h the skin carrying the bending
loads. The crossbeam is eliptical in cross section. O n the minor axis, a
fabricated beam carries the vertical bending loads, while the -J in skin carries
the torque load associated with foil drag forces. The crossbeam is secured
176

by four bolts and two stays, and is removable for transporting. The front
steering feature has been retained, and the foil details may be seen in the
photograph. The yardstick shown beneath the front foil system provides
size perspective. A l l foils are quickly removable for dry storage or transporting. The lifting foils are all oak except the small high speed aluminium
foil at the base of the front foil system. The horizontal foil shown at the
top of the rear foil system is not a lifting member. It is made of pine and

Don Nigg's foils.

Note yard rule

performs the dual function of a structural member, primarily for the foils
when detached, and a safety feature to be described. A l l foils have a 7 per
cent fineness ratio and are plano-convex, i.e. flat on the underside and a
circular arc on the upper surface. Again, this favours the home builder
while remaining competitive with other hydrodynamic shapes.
The crossbeam is sealed and provides r o l l stability while floating at the
dock and at very low taxi speeds. The horizontal member i n the rear foil
system has the same foil shape as the rest of the foils. However, it is set
at an angle of attack near the stall point for maximum lift, and its use as a
foil surface is two-fold. A t the dock, the buoyant crossbeam provides the
stability allowing one to walk all over the boat; even out to the beam ends.
A t taxi speeds up to about 2 knots, the ends o f the crossbeam frequently touch
the water momentarily as the result of sail forces and crew weight off centre.
These horizontal foils are out o f the water when the boat has zero heel, both
at rest or at low speeds, as seen in the pictures. A t about 2 or 3 knots, they
begin to develop enough foil action to provide an increasing amount of roll
stabihzation and tend to keep the ends o f the crossbeam from dragging i n
the water.
177

Take-off attitudeClimbing out

The take-oflf speed is 5 knots, and at this speed the regular rear foils are
providing most of the lateral and r o l l stabihty, along w i t h the off-centre crew
weight, and the boat does not have to drag these high-incidence-angle safety
foils through the water as it takes-off. Once foil borne, they provide a real
safety feature in the event o f a sudden r o l l transient. They provide great
lift when driven into the water and prevent the possibihty o f hooking the end
of the crossbeam in the water and thereby setting up a potential cartwheel
capsize condition. The test trial results of this roll stability sequence has been
especially gratifying.
As a generality, the craft handles better than EXOCOETUS.
It was felt
that lowering the m i n i m u m required w i n d from 13 knots to 10 knots and
lowering the take-off velocity from 6^ to 5 knots would greatly increase the
number of days in the season when flying the boat would be possible. These
changes meant larger foils and sails, but appeared to be worth it.
A larger sail results in a higher centre o f effort and thus a wider beam to
retain r o l l stability. The increase from 16 to 20 ft i n beam width more than
compensated for the larger sail. I t resulted in a basically more stable craft,
and hence one easier to handle.
One penalty that might not be obvious is some sacrifice in higher w i n d
conditions. I t is paradox of these craft w i t h their nearly flat drag-velocity
curves that one needs a substantial breeze to fly at all, and then one doesn't
need a whole l o t more to attain full capabifities o f the boat. Overpowering
soon becomes a problem. The larger sail areas quickly become a burden as
the wind rises, or i n handling the heavy puffs so characteristic o f this part
of the country. I have had to come i n off the lake on several occasions
because the wind was more than I could handle, while the Snipes and other
178

Don Nigg's hydrofoil at rest

small craft were weathering it fine. This is an area that others can develop
roller reefing on the boom, or something to shorten sail rather than having to
carry a heavy luff.
I don't know how fast this boat might have gone had 1 felt capable of
letting it out on several occasions. I have held it to what 1 estimate to be
within the 20 to 30 knot range for which it was designed. A t the top o f this
range it is riding pretty high in the water and the foils are beginning to feel
the waves. I t is entirely on the cantilevered tips o f the rear foils and riding
on the bottom half o f the small foil in front. This is another area for other
experimenters to carry onthose who want to see how fast they can go.
This boat would surely destroy itself in seconds i f turned loose in a 25 knot
wind.
The surface buoyant mode handling characteristics of this boat are also
somewhat better than EXOCOETUS,
but it still leaves a lot to be desired.
This is not unique to these two designs, all the other experimenters I have
talked with have complained about this. The boats all seem to get into irons
quite readily when not on the foils, and they are hard to get out. They will
not come about because their light weight and high drag when floating is too
adverse to permit them to headreach through the wind. This means that they
must be jibed about or boxhauled. Here again is an area for more development. I t might be noted that the front steering configuration appears to be
less of a weathervane. I t is therefore probably less of a problem in irons than
are the rear steering types.
179

I hope others will pick up this development from here, as this is probably
the last one I w i l l build. I've had my fun, and after getting the plans drawn
up and released, I ' l l probably turn my attention to other matters.
D o n Nigg
Plans now available from D o n Nigg. .s2000, U.S.A. -Sll-SO, Canada
and Australia. 10, U . K . Or from the A Y R S , Woodacres, Hythe, Kent,
England.
L e t t e r f r o m : David Buirski
Suikerbos, The Grange, Camps Bay, S. Africa
Dear M r . M o r w o o d ,
October 1966
Please find enclosed copies o f photographs taken recently. Since last
writing to you I have made and sailed with b o t h high aspect and low aspect
foils. I first made a high aspect foil, which 1 found was adequate in heavy
wind, but, as suspected, stalled badly in light winds. I t has another severe
failing in that it hobby-horsed in a chop.
I then proceeded with making a low aspect foil, as can be seen i n the
photographs herewith, which was perfect in both heavy and light w i n d
conditions. Incidentally, because the foil is not flat on each face but naturally
curved because of its foil shape, and as only the centre is at 46 , it does not
hold quite as well as the flatter centreboard type, thereby giving me an
additional bonus in that on the runs I am able to get all the board out o f the
water. Although it was not easy to get the foil out, it comes up very slowly
and is perfectly controllable. The same thing applied to a beat in light winds,
just allowing tip of foil in water, thereby cutting down drag and wetted
surface.
The boat is very fast in both light and heavy wind and drag from the foil
seems negligible.

Dave Buirski's buoyant Bruce foil, mostly lifted out

180

A r i g tried out a few days after tiie photograpli was talcen, using a much
bigger Genoa further forward, which gave me a total sail area of 210 sq ft,
was far more satisfactory than that illustrated in the photograph, which
indicated that the sail area had to be moved further forward. Unfortunately,
this will mean using a heavier mast, as the mast in the photograph will not be
able to handle the sail area in a stiff blow.
While sailing solo a friend of mine did actually overturn this crafta
sheet jammed and while he was busy freeing it the boat came up into the wind,
stopped, and a sudden gust tipped h i m over. It proved a simple matter to
right i t . . . every bit as quickly and easily as a normal dinghy.

Dave Buirski's boat showing low A.R. foil

Someone remarked " I t ' s fast alrightperhaps that's only because it's 21 ft
long". " A 21 ft catamaran', he said, " w i t h two hulls like yours, might be
just as fast". He overlooked, of course, the weight and wetted surface
aspect. Nevertheless, he had a point and 1 realized that to prove that it is
indeed faster I w i l l have to compete against an existing catamaran using an
identical single hull fitted w i t h my low aspect foil. The ideal craft to compare
with would be a Thai M a r k 4, as it has proved to be one o f the fastest catamarans o f its size i n the world, and as there is one i n Cape T o w n and also a
mould from which I can have a hull made, I intend doing just this, coupled
with your suggestion o f using an ice yacht r i g . I f it is convincingly faster
than the Thai, the same comparison can be drawn w i t h a C Class cat, proving,
as you think, that it is the fastest craft i n the world.
I would therefore be most happy i f you could let me have details o f the ice
yacht r i g i f they are back f r o m the printers.
D a v i d Buirski
181

CHAPTER XV
CENTREBOARDS
by John Morwood

With help from Edmond Bruce.

October, 1968
Drawings:

Ron

Doughty.

The main function of a centreboard is to increase the lateral resistance o f the

hull o f a sailing boat, when required by the course, at the m i n i m u m cost i n
drag due to the increased wetted surface, "induced drag" and drag due to
eddies produced by the board shape. The overall difference i n the yacht is
that, when it has leeway o f an angle which Edmond Bruce thinks should be
5, the "drag angle" or " l i f t to drag r a t i o " is decreased or increased respectively,
to make the boat sail closer to the wind.
History
Dagger boards were used in the Formosan bamboo sailing rafts and i n the
South American Jacanda and balsa rafts. The leeboard was invented by the
Chinese and (with the spritsail) was taken up by the Dutch. The centreboard,
however, was a true invention because it would be against any sailor's instinct
to cut a slot through the hull of his boat. Both English and American patents
for centreboards appear in the early 19th Century so it must have been more
or less unknown before that.
The w o r k b o a t c e n t r e b o a r d
The centreboard had its best development on the American east coast where
the water is often shallow. Catboats and the New Haven Sharpie are good
examples. The shape finally developed is, when dropped, a triangle about
twice as long at the top as on the " d r o p " , an aspect ratio o f 1 : 1. This shape
gives an excellent performance and might well be used for any cruising boat.
Dinghy centreboards
The modern light racing dinghy appeared on the yachting scene w i t h the high
aspect ratio Bermudian rig and the science o f aerodynamics rapidly becoming
known. The result was that the value of aspect ratio was k n o w n and many
people tried very high assect ratio boards. F o r instance, there is a story
of Beecher Moore sailing a Merlin Rocket w i t h a board 6 ft long and 6 in
in chord, an effective aspect ratio of 24 : 1. Apparently, he could sail it and
beat others to windward w i t h it but nobody else could. I n fact, o f course,
an increase of aspect ratio for an aeroplane wing above 6 : 1 is almost useless
due to high parasitic drag elsewhere in the plane. Because a centreboard has
only one " w i n g t i p " we need not think o f any ratio above 3 : 1 . Greater aspect
ratios than 3 : 1 w i l l only improve windward performance by a fractional
amount and they will decrease heeling stability. The modern trend is towards
even lower aspect ratios, even for catamarans.
Centreboard c o n s t r u c t i o n and design
Deeply immersed dinghy and catamaran boards can be made o f square strips
of wood, glued together to make a plank which may be shaped as follows:
182

1 The profile should be a semi-ellipse o f an aspect ratio span^/area o f 3 : 1.

2 The section should be pointed fore and aft w i t h the m a x i m u m thickness at
one third o f the chord from the leading edge, though some put it at the
mid chord line.
3 The thickness to chord ratio should be 1 : 12.
The reasons for all these dimensions are as follows:
1 Making the board of glued square sectioned strips avoids warping. Plywood
is a poor material for strength in a long axis and a board made f r o m
laminated veneers whose grain runs along the length is unstable and can
warp.
2 The profile and aspect ratio given are the result of sub-sonic aeronautical
theory backed up by wind tunnel tests and full sized aeroplanes. Whether
or no this need hold for a centreboard so near the surface is another matter
which will be discussed later.
3 The pointing of the section forward has been found to be useful in actual
sailing practice as well as in tank tests o f hydrofoils. I t eliminates vibration
in water.
4 The maximum lift to drag ratio with symmetrical aeroplane wing sections
is found with a thickness ratio o f 1 i n 8. Such sections are, of course,
rounded at the leading edge. Because we have found that pointing the
leading edge o f our centreboard section is valuable, this reduced the thickness
to chord ratio to 1 in 12. The position of the m a x i m u m thickness o f an
aeroplane wing is usually about one t h i r d o f the chord from the leading
edge. Yachtsmen can also use this position for the m a x i m u m thickness
of their centreboardsor, they can put it at the mid-chord point, which
seems a more logical place, though it doesn't seem to matter much in
practice.
I n all the above on dinghy centreboards, the arguments are more or less
orthodox and commonplace but, i f any member has any criticism or extension
of them would he please send a letter for publication.
The low aspect r a t i o c e n t r e b o a r d
For boards operating near the water surface, various factors may be taken
into account in deriving what may be the best shape. These are:
1 The American workboat centreboard of a triangle twice as long at the slot
as in the " d r o p " .
2 The value and use of the quarter circle centreboard as i n the International
Sharpie and other boats. The term "stable" is frequently used for these
boats.
3 Edmond Bruce's tank finding that the lowest drag angle for boats appears
when a thin surface-piercing board has an aspect ratio o f 1 : 1 though only
rectangular shapes have been tested, so far. He also finds that most
multihulls have boards which are too small.
4 Centreboards are not completely analagous to aerofoils or hydrofoils
deeply immersed i n a fluid, which is "incompressible". Being so near the
surface, the water acted upon by the board seems "compressible" since it
is pushed aside, giving surface waves. Conventional sub-sonic hydrodynamics are not therefore relevant and we must discover the best by trial
and error either at full scale or i n the tank.
183

5 The forward upper corner of a low aspect ratio keel should be " f a i r e d " into
the hull by a concave shapeSmith iV/iy Sailboats Win and Lose
Races.
6 Hull drag angles get less w i t h increasing "sweepback" angles to the leading
edge of fin-keelsSouthampton University's study of keel sweepback
angles in the 5-5 metre. A sweepback angle of about 25 seems to be about
the optimum.
7 A study of the fins of fishes shows that Nature likes a convex curve to a fin
behind the concave fairing into the body. A study at the Stevens Institute
a few years ago showed that the maximum pressure on the keel of a 12 metre
type occurred at the leading edge half way down it. A convexity here
seems likely to be of value.
8 The trailing edges of fishes fins can be straight, concave or convex and no
fairing into the body is used.
Combining as many of these 8 factors as I can, I have drawn a profile of a fin
which seems unlikely to be far off the o p t i m u m for a centreboard or rudder
and, for good measure have drawn a fish with these kinds o f fins which doesn't
seem to be too deformed, though what kind o f a fish it is, I don't know.
Such a fin could be used as a centreboard, salient fin or rudder.

Centreboard size
Harrison Butler (Cruising Yacht Design) gives the total lateral plane area
of a yacht below the L W L as between l/25th to l/35th o f the sail area This
seems an odd way to work as sail area is a function of the w h i m ot the
designer, the length of the boat and whether or no it is "light displacement".
Skene (Elements of Yacht Design) is more rational in that he related lateral
plane to the immersed "mid-ships" section by a factor of between 4 and 6.
Neither of these authorities is therefore of much good to us and neither
helps us with multihulls. Lateral plane does, however, seem to be related
to hull displacement in a general way and this angle could be explored.
Moreover, multihulls seem to fit in with this rule.
To be precise, the o p t i m u m size o f centreboard is that which gives the
smallest possible drag angle which appear to be in the region of 10 for a
multihull. 1 do not know a figure for a drag angle for a single hulled yacht
to which one could aim.
184

SURFACE-PIERCING

HYDROFOILS

FOR

HEELING

P R E V E N T I O N A N D LIFT
by E d m u n d B r u c e

Lewis Cove, Hance Road, Fair Haven, N.j., U.S.A.

Air-ventilation
I n Chapter X , the present writer stated the critical dimensions, for the
locations o f canted hydrofoils, which would achieve dynamic neutralization
of heeling. The dinghy, pictured there-in, originally was provided w i t h a
foil of high aspect ratio. Above certain speeds to windward, it was troubled
with a loss o f lateral lift. F r o m observation o f the water, it was quite
apparent that this was due to 'air-ventilation', from the water surface, down
the negative pressure side o f the canted hydrofoil.
The dinghy was next equipped with a lower aspect ratio foil o f larger area,
as best pictured by the model on page 127. As a result, the air-ventilation
troubles disappeared, regardless of the boat speed achieved. Evidently,
one cannot be guided by the teachings o f aeronautical handbooks when
designing surface-piercing hydrofoils or even submerged foils which are
close enough to the water surface to cause any degree o f wave-making or
surface turbulence.
To gain more insight into the problems o f surface penetrating foils, a series
of tests were performed in the author's laminar-flow towing tank. These
will now be described.

Test a r r a n g e m e n t
When the towing tank was originally built, it employed an over-head towing
carriage on a track. When it became evident that towing by means of a
single long cord, attached to a point equivalent to the sail's centre o f eff'ort,
produced more accurate results, the overhead railway was put aside but kept
intact. This was fortunate as we shall see.
John M o r w o o d , i n A YRS No. 62, page 8, suggested an experimental
arrangement for quickly measuring hull drag angles at various amounts o f
leeway, for a stated boat speed. This writer was so impressed with the
labour-saving possibilities o f this arrangement that he re-activated the former
over-head railway and equipped it w i t h the M o r w o o d suggestion. It was
arranged so that its pair of arms was attached to both the floating model and
the carriage through universal joints located at the height o f the centre o f
effort of the sails, chosen as L / 2 for the model. This permitted simulating
any heeling which would occur under natural conditions, also any lift.
A constant model speed was obtained since the towing carirage was operated
from a properly geared synchronous motor. This produced a violent starting
yank on the model but, fortunately, its progress was stabilized by the time it
reached the end o f the tank where readings were made. Readings were
made somewhat difficult by the fact that the scale was moving. The violent
means o f accelerating the model should be softened for more complete
satisfaction. A stationary scale, probably electrical, w o u l d also help.
185

Measurements
We all want to know the o p t i m u m for size, aspect ratio and shape for our
hydrofoils, whether vertical or canted, for best windward performance. We
have learned that the criterion, for best windward performance, is the lowest
possible drag angle for the particular hull employed.
The number of experiments required to determine the grand o p t i m u m foil
would be the product o f all the variations o f size, aspect ratio, canting,
curvature, shape, arm length, w i n d w a r d or leeward position, etc. This
seemed overwhelming to a lazy individual. Thus, for an initial educational
insight, only rectangular, thin, flat foils were studied.
The model hull chosen was a 15-inch long. Model N o . 8 with a high metacentre as discussed on page 19 o f AYRS
No. 45. I t was connected to a
single outrigged foil, without a float. The outrigger a r m lengths were initially
adjusted to one-quarter of the length o f the model. This corresponds to
many trimarans when sailing with the windward float out o f water. A small
rudder and an out-of-water counter-weight for the foil were provided.
Vertical foils were tested and also canted foils. The vertical foils were
first positioned to leeward. The best combination was then placed to
windward to obtain a comparison. The constant speed o f the model was
0-65 feet per second. This is equivalent to the l o w speed of V / \ / L =0-35
in order to avoid the complications o f appreciable wave-making, w i t h its
increase in drag angle.
The canted foils were always to leeward so that, i n addition to heeling
compensation, vertical lift was also provided. A compromise outrigger a r m
length was studied for comparison with the critical arm length, for heefing
neutralization.
V e r t i c a l foils
Table A , for vertical foils, concisely presents the measured inter-relations and
the overall optima between six variables. These are:
Variable :
Optimum:
1 H u l l Drag Angle
12
2 Leeway Angle
5
3 Foil W i d t h
2 i in
4 Foil Depth
2 i in
5 Foil Area
6-25 sq in
6 Aspect Ratio
100
Plotting six variables on two dimensional plotting paper w i t h criss-crossing
lines and various labels seems a confusing mess. For this reason, only the
tabular form for data will be presented here. The reader may want to plot
any pair of variables which may interest him.
The much discussed o p t i m u m leeway angle of about 5" has appeared again.
A n optimum 5 leeway for the model in laminar flow may well be 4' for full
size in turbulent flow. The advantage of high aspect ratio for surface
piercing foils apparently has been disproved since a unity ratio seems best.
Both the width and depth of the vertical foil, for a h u l l equal to this one's
high merit, is about one-sixth of the water-line length. A poorer h u l l
probably would have different values except the tank o p t i m u m leeway o f
about 5 might still prevail.
186

Model Hull Drag Angles versus Dimensions for Vertical, Flat, Thin, Rectangulai Foils.
Outrigged to Leeward. Arm Length = L/4. L = 15". Speeds ^ 0-65 ft per sec.

Leeway
Angles
r

Width - i r
Depth =^
*
3" 4"
2"

5"

Width ^- 2i"
Depth
**
2"
2r
li"

Width = 5"
Depth =

*
r

1"

ir

49

37

38

28

25

47

32

27

27

43

38=

34

21

40

24

22

18

15

32

21

15

15

35

27

23

15

22

18

14

12

23

20

*
16

**5

27

16

14

*
13

7i

20

17

16

16

17

18

17

14

14

19

19

17

10

22

21

19

18

18

22

19

18

18

22

20

19

12i

24

22

20

20

20 1 25

21

20

20

23

20

20

15

29

24

23

22

22

24

22

22

23

23

22

Foil Area
sq in

26

*
*
**
1-25 2-50 3-75 5 0 0 6-25 2-50 3-75 5 0 0 6-25 3-75 5 0 0 6-25

* Best of group.
* Best overall.
Note: The drag angle at 0 leeway is not 90 because the single outrigger is
asymmetrical.
TABLE A

The question arises as to what the result w o u l d be i f the best foil o f Table A
were placed to windward, rather than to leeward. Table A shows the
measured data. A f o i l to windward, rather than to leeward w o u l d give
greater directional steering stability. This is because the sail force is away
from the centre of water resistance, not toward i t . However, the table's
optimum shows that no appreciable difference w o u l d result in their abilities
to sail to windward.
Model Hull Drag Angles for Leeward versus Windwaid Placement of Foil 2.i Wide
by 2i Deep. Arm Length = L/4.

Leeway Angles

0=

2r

* 5

7i

Foil to Leeward

27

15

*12

14

Foil to Windward

21

14

*12

14

TABLE B

187

10

12i

10

18

20

22=

16

Canted foils
Now we will take up the question as to how a 45 canted foil to leeward,
which is used additionally for heeling compensation and also verical Hft,
would affect the windward performance. The measured data is presented
in Table C.

Model Hull Drag Angles versus Dimensions lor 45= Canted, Flat, Thin, Rectangular
Foils. Outrigged to Leeward. Width 21" throughout. Arm Length Varied.
Speed = 0-65 ft per sec.

2i"

Arm
: L/4
Depth =
3"
3i"

IV

Critical
Arm = L/2
Depth =
4r
3r

38

33

31

39=

39

41

ir

27

23

20

31

26

32

5
w

19
18

18
17

17
*16

s,

17
14

17
*12

15
13

10

21

19

18

17

*12

14

i2r

22

20

19

17

14

14

15

22

22

22

17

16

15

6-25

7-50

8-75

6-25

8-75

11-25

Horizontal
Leeway
Angles
0

_^

Foil Area
sq in

60

"
o
C N<u
nj

11
.sz
i>
X

* Best of group.
TABLE C

Here we find that, for the 45 canted foil, the critical length of the outrigged
arm of L/2, producing non-heeling, is far superior to the compromise arm
length o f L/4.
While the best drag angle is the same as the best achieved w i t h
the vertical foils, a dynamic lift has been created also. Its advantage at still
higher speeds than tested should be outstanding. The vertical lift w i l l greatly
reduce the parasitic resistance o f the main hull.
Note that the optimum size o f the canted foil is now approximately 8-75
sq in rather than 6-25 sq in for the previous vertical foil. The latter is
nearly 0-7 times the area of the former. This is precisely what one w o u l d
expect. The projection, on a vertical plane, of the o p t i m u m 45 canted foil
area should equal the area of the o p t i m u m vertical foil. The sine or cosine
of 45 is nearly 0-7, therefore this does occur.
It is interesting to note that the optimum leeway angle of some 7 or more,
which was measured in the horizontal plane o f the water surface, represents
only about a 5 angle of attack to the canted foil. This results because an
angle o f attack must be measured i n a plane perpendicular to the 45 canted
188

foil. This plane must also contain the line of motion. So our convenient
"rule of t h u m b " of a 5 optimum angle of attack has been further supported
by the canted foil data in spite of the added complications.
A Curved Canted Foil
While this completes the series o f measurements made on thin, flat, rectangular
foils, there is no doubt that swept-back shapes and curved foils also should be
studied by someone. For curiosity, one "stab in the d a r k " will be made
with one curved thin foil. There is no reason to believe that its curvature
is an optimum.
Table D shows the result of a formed circular segment, deflected by 7 per
cent o f the cord, concave to leeward, for the best canted foil of Table C.
It has a 2i in cord, a span o f 3J in and employs the critical arm length
of L/2 to leeward. In a full size boat, a separate foil would be employed for
each tack because opposite curvatures are required. The single curved foil
in use would always be to leeward. Thus a trimaran-like structure may be
called for.
Model Hull Drag Angle Comparison for Flat versus Circular-Segment, Curved Foil
of Same Dimensions and Leeward Placement. 2J" Wide by 3 J" Span.
Arm Length
L 2. Curved Foil Deflection = 7 percent of Chord.

Leeway Angles

2i=

7r

10

12^

15

Flat Foil

39

26

17

*12

12

14

16

Curved Foil

23

13

*10

10

12

15

17

TABLE D

Table D indicates that we still have a lot o f scope for improvement. The
resulting best drag angle o f 10 is greater by only 1 than the best configuration ever measured by the writer. I can highly recommend canted
foils which produce heeling compensation and lift, both horizontally and
vertically.

SIKGLE FOIL S T A B I L I Z E D S U R F
D e s i g n e r / B u i l d e r : G e o r g e Bagnall

LOA
Depth
Sail Area
Main Hull is ply joined
weight 84 lbs.

BOARD

2, Hester Close, HIghtown, Liverpool

11 ft 6 in
Beam
3 ft 2 in
I I in
45 Foil
6 ft x 18 in
49 sq ft on unstayed mast.
by copper wire, tape and glue at each seam.
Hull

The hull was designed to be sailed as a skimmer and sailed well on all points;
but was difficult to handle and needed constant luffing and easing o f the sheet
to prevent a capsize. The result o f adding the foil, as suggested by John
M o r w o o d , was a feeling o f stability.
189

George Bagnall's low A.R. Bruce foil

The craft runs and reaches well, but when i n a bumpy sea w i t h the foil to
lee a certain difficulty in tacking is experienced. W i t h the foil to weather
she tacks smartly. A t first the foil was used without a floatation chamber
but this was added later thus streamlining the foil supporting struts and
eliminating any tendency for the foil to submerge. Very little centre board
is needed when reaching or running but when beating without the centreboard
the boat sags to leeward. Inferences from experience are:
1 The boat does not heel so it does not get the benefit of the long chine to
prevent leeway.

Plans of George Bagnall's boat

2 The C L R o f the foil should be forward o f the CE.

Latest developments have been to build a new main hull, 12 ft 8 in
2 ft 8 in
X 1 ft 2 in without a dagger board but the results with the existing foil were
poor, the boat making leeway and being poor at tacking. Foils copied from
Edmond Bruce and Paul Ashford's TRIPLE
SEC (see page 159)
were tried but the new hull still made leeway and i t is felt that a boat
like this will not sail properly without a centreboard o f some kind.

191

CHAPTER X V I
THE

FLYING HYDROFOIL Y A C H T

Designed b y : D a v i d A . K e i p e r , C o n s u l t i n g P h y s i c i s t .

WILLIWAW"
October, 1968

2I0I,-C Bridgeway, Sausallto, California, U.S.A.

LOA
31 ft 4 in
Total displacement
3000 lb
LWL
Light weight
2100 l b
28 ft
Beam:
Sail Area (full working) 380 ft^
Overall hull
15 ft
sloop rig, loose footed mains'l
with camber control.
Main hull
3 ft
Hydrofoil
23 ft
Draft:
H u l l material: mostly i in marine
16 in
plywood, covered with 4J oz fibreMain hull
Hydrofoils
5 ft (zero speed)
glass.
Bow f o i l : deep-V, 30' dihedral (lower portion), 10 sweep, aspect ratio
26 (at zero speed).
Lateral foils (P & S): four rung ladder, 35 dihedral, 14 sweep, aspect
ratio 7-7 (but with full chord struts at blade tips).
Stern f o i l : four rung ladder, 0 dihedral, aspect ratio 6-2 (but w i t h full
chord struts at blade tips), entire assembly pivots for rudder action.
Lift coefficients at design take-off speed of 12 knots: Bow 0-8, Lateral 0-65,
Stern 0-3.
Calculated Lift to Drag ratio: 14-15.
Calculated wind velocity required for take-off: 12-13 knots (excess wind
increases take-off speed).
Structure: designed to withstand water forces of one ton/ft-. A l l foil
units are retractable. Lateral foils may be used with bow and stern foils
retracted (Force 2-3 winds).
Accommodation: 2 bunks, one in stern cabin, one in wing ( r o o m for
3 or 4 bunks).
Settee, galley table, shelves, bookcases, head. Headroom: 5 ft plus.
See also pages 147 and 152.

LETTERS FROM D A V I D A . KEIPER

March 15, 1968.
Dear John,
Please pardon my long silence. Possibly, though. A r t Piver has mentioned
to you that WILLIWAW
^as undergoing trials with its complete foil system.
I enclose a couple of colour photographs (taken by Fergus Quigley) which
show the hydrofoils in operating position.
W/LLIWAW
didn't have hydrofoils until November. By then the westerly
winds were pretty dead. The winter winds are too fickle for testing. A good
wind has usually turned to pouring rain by the time I got a crew together for
sailing. There was one reasonable testing day. A r t Piver was crew and
ballast. The wind reached Force 4 in several puffs. The craft reached a
speed o f 13-14 knots (measured with a pitot tube), and was about 90 per cent
192

Dave Keiper's WILUWAW,

showing main and stern foils

foilborne. A poor sail set and a foul b o t t o m were working against that day.
The w i n d dropped before 1 managed to get the main sheet hauled in, so we
didn't get to 'fly'.
Above about 8 knots, the foils add a significant stabilizing effect to the
craft, both lateral and longitudinal. A t low speed, foil action is mainly a
roll and pitch damping. The drag of the foils slows the boat in light winds,
but i n a chop this is partly compensated by increased sail drive resulting from
the greater steadiness o f the craft. A l l in all, this 3000 lb craft has the feel
of a 10 ton yacht in light winds, except that when coming into a dock one
can put a foot to stop the boat without breaking a leg.
I had a couple of hair-raising experiences with the boat earlieronce a
capsize with no hydrofoils, and once a w i l d 60 mile ride with a single lateral
stabilizing foil.
Before any of my hydrofoils were fabricated, I was testing the boat and
succeeded in capsizing it. The capsize was not planned, but I learned much
from i t . I t occurred in a 20-26 knot gust o f wind with 340 sq ft o f sail up.
A t the time, the craft weighed about 1600 lbs. The capsize was gentle, the
boat capsizing 'backwards' (bow lifting skywards) because o f the rather
far-forward pontoons. The mast trapped a column o f air, and the boat
193

settled at a 100 heel. The boat was righted easily with assistance from a
power cruiser. There was no damage. Then I started making calculations
of what the righting moments would be with the hydrofoils installed. L o
and behold, it looks as i f the craft should be self-righting with the hydrofoils
in operating position and the sails aloft. This results from several factors:
(1) the low e.g. and 400 lbs weight of the A l u m i n i u m hydrofoils, (2) the small
pontoons, and (3) the high and rather buoyant wing section connecting the
hulls. A t any rate, after a capsize, several factors, one or a combination o f
them, would certainly right the craft: (1) lowering the sails, (2) windage on
the skyward pontoon after the boat swings around, and (3) a crew member
hiking out on one of hydrofoil ladders. However, I ' m not planning any
such experiments in these icy waters.
Last May, 1 moved the boat to the South end o f San Francisco Bay to have
it near the company assisting me on hydrofoil fabrication (Aquanautics, Inc.
of Sunnyvale, California). A t the time, the lateral stabilizing foil on the
port side was finished. This was convenient, since the 60 mile trip South
would be with westerly winds. However, in the eagerness for tests, 1 didn't
bother to install some planned bracing in the foil ladder. During the first
part of the trip, we (an adventurous young lady and 1) experienced light winds.
A good wind started picking up while between Alcatraz and Treasure Island.
The boat came alive, and as wind and speed climbed, the hydrofoil stabilizer
began eerie moaning and singing, changing its tune as wind and speed changed.
The nearest description o f the sound that 1 can give is that it is like the p u r r i n g
sound heard at sport car rallies, with cars up-shifting and down-shifting.
After haulmg in the sheets and putting the boat on its fastest heading, we
were probably doing 15 knots, with a true wind o f probably 15-20
knots. A t this speed, the boat had zero heel. The hydrofoil was supplying
all of the righting moment, as well as leeway resistance. The main hull was
obviously planing on its scow bottom. The craft handled beautifully.
Suddenly 1 felt the boat take a tiny lurch to leeward. On glancing at the
hydrofoil, 1 noticed that the struts were bent slightly. Obviously, sail side
force alone had caused the struts to yield. The wind was picking up i n force,
and so when we got into the lee of one of the towers of the Oakland Bay
Bridge, 1 furled the mainsail. The winds then picked up to near gale force,
in the gusts. Steep waves rapidly built up. We started a wild unforgettable
twenty mile ride with j i b alone. The boat surfed wildly at times. Beam
waves smashing on the main hull caused the foil struts to bend much further,
but the blading continued to give lift. Surfing at high speed, the craft took
on negative heel. Occasionally, my shallow temporary rudder came clear o f
the water, at which point the boat headed for the nearest wave valley at high
speed. The foil always maintained positive lift and steadied the boat from
rolling tendencies. Climbing waves, the boat nearly stopped and tended to
heel considerably. The trip nearly ended up a disaster when the Southern
Pacific Railroad failed to open up one o f their swing bridges to allow us
to pass.
After this trip, 1 modified the design o f the foil units so that they could
withstand the maximum possible water force (which amounts to about
200 lbs per sq ft of surface). N o w , with good structure, I feel a bit more
confident when taking the boat out for tests.
194

Ma/ I, 1968.

L e t t e r f r o m David A . Keiper

We've been having some good winds here lately. WILLIWAW

has now
flown on its hydrofoils on two separate occasions, doing 15 knots w i t h five
persons aboard. The transition between hull buoyancy and foil lift is very
smooth, going up and coming down. The speed isn't very startling as yet,
but we did leave a cruising trimaran far behind. N o w I ' m w o r k i n g on the
problem of getting the boat to accelerate once it is flying.
Commenting on your letter of M a r c h 19:
To make a hydrofoil yacht self-righting doesn't strike me as a difficuh
problem. W i t h pontoon buoyancy considerably less than craft weight and
the weight of metal hydrofoils below the hull, it comes naturally. Sealing
the mast is an extra guarantee. Because o f the overall light weight o f the
hydrofoil craft, a knock-down is a distinct possibility, I w o u l d regard the
self-righting characteristic on a hydrofoil craft as an essential for safety.
On a trimaran, it is much more difficult to design self-righting into it, and
also design for high performance.
Since trimaran capsize is very rare, i t
doesn't strike me as necessa.y to have the craft inherently self-righting.
W i t h a hollow sealed mast, the trimaran can be prevented from settling at a
180 heel. W i t h provision for filling the underwater pontoon w i t h water,
the trimaran could be righted.

San Jose, California, U.S.A.

L e t t e r f r o m : Clayton A . Feldman

O c t o b e r S, 1967.

Dear John,
Disliking long delays in correspondence and having received your letter
concerning low aspect ratio foils yesterday, I set about testing your concept
of foil design, a few minutes i n the workshop last night being productive o f
half-size models of the 4 foils and a 6 ft pole with a 45 slot sawn into i t .
The foils made from | in hardboard snap into this slot.
Then to the backyard swimming pool where each foil was fixed in the slot
and swung i n an arc.
Again M o r w o o d triumphs, for the low aspect ratio with 45 entry and
exit clearly cut the water the cleanest, left the narrowest and sharpest wake,
and had the least turbulent flow across the foil from entry to exit.
The rounded Bagnall foil (Ed.See page 191) was next best with good
entry and exit and little turbulence, the Ashford (See page 159) t h i r d
with considerable turbulence and a broader wake, and
my
own
rectangular foil clearly the poorest, with turbulence at entry and exit and
considerable " p i l i n g - u p " of water across the face o f the f o i l .
As to which shape w o u l d give the most lift, one can only assume that
the deciding factors would be the surface area and the aspect ratio, and these
being equal, the shape with the least generated turbulence (the M o r w o o d
shape) should be the best.
I n the next phase of the experiment in which you have entangled me, I
think I shall build a crude 4 ft L O A narrow hulled boat and try the foils
195

first in tlie pool before making a set for my little 8 ft trimaran (See page
156).
I f I am convinced that the low aspect ratio foils can do
more than just stabilize a float, 1 shall try them on the 8 footer, using some
life rings for reserve buoyancy and do away with the floats altogether. This
may seem over cautious but 1 still think that 1 shall get wet without floats!

B A G N A L L

FLLDMAN

TYPE

MORWOOD TYPE
196

May 26, 1968.

M y little 8 ft trimaran is semi-retired as I get a devil o f a backache from
cramming myself into the tiny hull for any length of time.
Earlier this year, however, I did pursue the hydrofoil findings o f the last
few publications. First 1 added a small j i b on a bowsprit for a bit more
speed, then 1 added longer crossbeams to make an asymmetric trimaran, the
centre of the most distant float's foil being the "Bruce Length" o f sail centre
of effort to perpendicular intercept with the line drawn between foil centre
of effort; the other float was left on at the usual distance from the hull for
insurance. Well, i t sailed well, was extremely stable (annoyingly so!), but
came about with all the elegance o f a log raft.
Having satisfied myself that the inboard float was not needed, it was
promptly left at the dock and 1 went flying off with the single hydrofoil-float
doing the j o b . The boat was then a good deal faster, quite stable, and much
more manoeuvrable. I n 15 mph winds, with the float to windward, I had
to really lean out to even see the bottom o f the float. Once the foil became
to weather, it stuck in as though glued unless I suddenly threw my weight to
leeward, then it would start to slowly lift out of the water. I never let i t
break out completely, as happiness is staying dry!
I am starting preliminary sketches of a 15-16 ft hydrofoil stabilized t r i maran, designed to A Y R S criteria, and hopefully to be constructed o f
polyester foam which should make a very light transportable boat.
Thanks for your (and A Y R S ) encouragement and inspiration.

SULUMOSQUITO T R I M A R A N Mk
Designers and Builders:
Derek Norfolk and Rodney G a r r e t t

11
A p r i l , 1969

36a Duke Street, Brighton, BN I I A G

Hull Displacement
610 lb
Sail Area
178 sq ft
Float Displacement
325 lb
Draught
10 in
Length OA
18 f t
Draught Plate D o w n
4 ft 3 i n
Beam
10 ft
Beam Folded
3 ft 9 i n
Trimarans in the cruising classes are available in ever increasing numbers,
but for those who prefer the cheaper sporty type of boat, the choice is very
limited. For lively performance combined w i t h stability and effortless
sailing the trimaran configuration seems to offer one of the best solutions
for two sailors (in this case not so young) who like to j o i n i n the racing without
having to endure the strenuous efforts required for dinghy racing.
Thus SULU was evolved by her j o i n t owners for their enjoyment and ease
of operation and also to be capable of a good all-round preformance. N o t
least among her attributes she has provided an excellent "test bed" for further
trials with the fully retractable variable incidence foils which are installed
in the floats.
She was not constructed with the intention of being a production prototype,
the fabrication being somewhat involved in order to achieve the desired
197

SULU

at speed with lee float off the water

hull shape and to effect the special degree of foldability for ease of transportation and at the same time come w i t h i n the limitations of the home
workshop.
However, now that the inevitable problems have been ironed out and an
efficient design has been created, simplification o f detail and economy o f
construction employing factory techniques could no doubt be made. The
cost of materials including building frames for the hull, plug and mould for
the fibreglass iloats, spars, rigging and sails complete, worked out at approximately 285. This figure is without the foils which would amount to about
an additional 15.
198

199

The fore and aft position of the floats relative to the hull have been found
in practice to be about right. Under all sorts of weather conditions the hull
always lifts bow first. O n no occasion has the boat taken any water green
over the forward deck even in conditions when an A Class Cat has pitchpoled.
The shape o f the floats is circular in section aft and elliptical forward,
becoming a pointed ellipse right forward. This arrangement gives a fine
entry on the surface o f the water reducing wave making, and also prevents
the forward end of the float from pounding.
I f the conditions are such that the bow o f the float digs i n , it lifts out very
quickly because the water will slide off the elliptical section easily and without
disturbance. Each float is fitted with hydrofoil blades which are fully
retractable into the body o f the float, with an automatic " b o m b d o o r " to
close the opening on the underside. The foils are raised and lowered by a
wire tackle which may also be used to alter the angle of attack as desired.
The blades are hinged to enable them to retract into the float and to open
automatically when lowered. The hinge arrangement also makes it impossible
to get any negative lift which would tend to pull the float lower down into
the water.
FIBRECLASS
[- MOULDING

When the boat is sailed nearly upright in light and moderate winds there
is no advantage in using the foils. I f the w i n d is strong enough to keep the
float nearly submerged and the sea is fairly smooth, the use o f foils can give
quite dramatic speeds, but unfortunately so far not measured. The best that
has been recorded to date is a two way race o f approximately 11 miles in
65 minutes, leaving Flying Dutchman and Fireballs far behind. When the
boat is hard pressed by a heavy gust (without foils) the lee float submerges,
the hull will lift a few inches and in this position she seems to stay giving time
to ease off the sheets. The heel angle reduces the effectiveness of the sails,
the A frame tubes hit the water and the boat slows up. This is, o f course,
not recommended but i f it happens no harm is done.
200

Photo: Yachting World.

Foil working

The boat has not yet capsized, or in fact approached it, and it is not k n o w n
if it could be righted, without external assistance. The two crew would just
about be able to submerge one float i n the event o f a complete inversion,
but from then on it is, up to the present, a matter for conjecture.
For transporting the boat by road trailer, the mast is taken down and the
two sets of tubes under the " A " frames are unbolted at their outboard ends;
the floats and " A " frames are hinged up over the top of the hull. The
unbolted tubes are swung round alongside the hull, reducing the overall w i d t h

to about 3 ft 9 i n . The mast is then lowered down between the floats on

to the transom and the crutch o f the road trailer. The whole operation,
either folding or unfolding ready to launch, takes about 30 minutes.
Whatever type of boat is designed there always seems to be some disadvantage in comparison w i t h some other type. The floats of a racing
trimaran of necessity have to be o f light construction and will not withstand
much of a collision with another competing boat nor a heavy bump against
a quayside. The floats o f this boat are no exception, although for sea conditions, launching and landing on concrete slipways and shingle beaches, the
floats and their supporting members are amply robust.

36A, Duke Street, Brighton, 1.

l-etter f r o m : Rodney G a r r e t t

Dear John,
As regards the surface relation o f a fully immersed foil, one can take
advantage o f the ready made levelling of fully immersed foils to some extent
at least, according to the f o l l o w i n g :
The lift co-efficient C L increases with depth o f immersion as indicated.
" F u l l y submerged" condition is reached at about 3 chords depth below the
surface.

4-

I n practice it is the problem o f keeping the T foil type immersed which is

rather difficult I find, even with the crew manipulating the angle of attack
unless he is very much on the ball.
W i t h a trimaran configuration I think that the moment of inertia o f the
craft is very low. Rather like the tight rope walkers with the balancing pole.
When there is a hole in the wind the lee foil or float finds it very easy to pop up.
Obviously the foils are set much too shallow i n SULU, about 10 in only,
and I would increase this to at least 30 i n .
I don't believe that we need to raise the level o f the "fliers" as much as
some seem to do. After all, the high speed day boats mostly operate i n
relatively calm water, and they need only to skim over the small waves.
202

Boats for Atlantic seas are out o f my ken, anyway! I find tfiat i f SULU's.
lee float is raised by 25 per cent only, there is quite a release o f energy due t o
the decrease i n wetted area.
I think 1 would go one better, (or one less!) than your 4 foil arrangement
if possible after the manner depicted on my sketch on page 62 of A YRS
issue No. 66A, the angle o f pitch being controlled from the rear instead o f
at the front. The tail w i l l be lightly loaded so it would be sensitive and
responsive to immediate alteration in the angle o f incidence; like the tail
ailerons o f an aircraft (old fashioned type).
Now one lee foil would be mostly doing the lifting j o b . Even at 19 m p h
which is about the point where we should be thinking o f starting to fly, as
most multihulls can do 16 m p h plus without much difficulty in standard form,
the lift from one o f my foils with, say, 2J sq ft area, is reckoned to be i n the
order o f 455 lbs force, at 2 chords depth only. As y o u know the lift goes
up by the square o f the speed, and at 25 mph the lift would be about 810 lbs
force at 5' angle o f attack and a C L o f -25.
I think it is essential to have the main foils well forward to resist the sail
force, i.e.:

I don't understand the arrangement, as i n D o n Nigg's, which seems to

leave a "gap" i n support from a foil where y o u surely need it most?
W i t h my tridrofoil, a l l 3 foils w o u l d be fully retractable for ease o f going
about or for manoeuvring, etc, etc, and the aft one combines to f c r m a
rudder o f course i n the tail unit which has a modicum o f buoyancy.
I call it a T R I D O F O I L which Montgomery (Editor o f Multihull
International) dubbed SULU, although it looks like more o f a catamaran with a tail,
than a t r i .
The two hulls or floats would be torpedo shape for submarining efficiently,
as I think that there need not be any excess o f buoyancy i n view o f the foils
supplying the lift, but enough o f course for n o r m a l manoeuvring etc. when
not foiling.
The arch section bridge deck would keep the crew well off the water t o be
reasonably dry.
A l l exciting stuff.
203

THE SQUID
by John Morwood
This summer (1970), 1 was reading Nigel Tetley's book. Trimaran
Solo.
Suddenly, I came upon the photograph of two squids which had come aboard,
having jumped 5 ft up and 11 ft across the boat. Like Archimedes i n his
bath, I realized what I was looking atNature's hydrofoils.
The Encyclopedia Brittanica was unhelpful under the heading o f " S q u i d "
but Cephalopodia had what I wanted to know.
The Atlantic squid disperses deeply during the day but comes to the surface
at night to feed on plankton. I n turn, whales eat squid and cruise along

204

on the surface, scooping them up. To escape being eaten, the squid, presumably sensing the approach o f the whale, jumps out o f the water.
The squid's fins are not much used for propulsion and I guess that, when
feeding at the surface, it swims with the head end forward by suclcing i n
water from ahead and diverting this water by the tentacles towards the tail
end when i t is blown out. O n the approach of a whale, however, the squid
puts out a very powerful jet o f water (to which i t adds " i n k " ) and jumps
wildly from the whale's path at considerable speed, w i t h the tail end, and
fins, first.
The fins
When feeding, the fins act as skegs giving a stable course and, because the
speed is low, no great hydrodynamic elegance is required f r o m them. They
are fixed to the outer shell which is called the "pen". On the other hand,
when the squid is doing its escape act, it is going at high speed in the opposite
direction. The whole animal retracts into the " p e n " to give the greatest
force to the jet propulsion and the fin must function with the maximum
efficiency.
The placing of the fins of the Atlantic squid near the tail end will make
sudden changes of course easier during the squid's leap backwards, though
one suspects that the water jet produces a good deal o f stability i n course.
Once up in the air, however, surely the fins will t u r n the animal so that the
head end goes first, the fins acting like the feathers of an arrow.
The shape of t h e fins
There are two varieties of squid which are of interest to us; the Atlantic
and the Mediterranean squids. The fins are t h i n in section and the profile
shapes must surely be those which we could use for hydrofoils. This opinion
is seldom that of people trained in aerodynamics or hydrodynamics who
always seem to want the highest aspect ratios. However, E d m o n d Bruce's
tank tests prove clearly the value o f aspect ratios of 1 : 1. When Nature and
tank tests agree, it must surely be a mistake to apply aerodynamic theory.
The drawings by Gerald H o l t o m show the two types of squid, the Atlantic
squid at the left. Both have fins with an aspect ratio o f 1 : 1 and those o f
the Atlantic squid have the leading edge curved which we have shown on
other grounds to be desirable. Presumably, the Mediterranean squid is the
slower swimmer in the escape act but there is not likely to be much in efficiency
between the two. However, the Mediterranean shape is much more suitable
for stabilizers than that of the Atlantic type.
We also show a ray of the Indian Ocean which swims at considerable speed
by flapping its wings like a bird. Again, the aspect ratio and curved leading
edge will be noted.

205

CHAPTER X V I I
A Y R S SAILING HYDROFOIL
Organised by J a m e s Grogono

MEETING
August 1970
38, New Road, London. E.l

On May 30th-31st, 1970 about 50 people gathered in Burnham-on-Crouch

for the first ever meeting devoted entirely to sailing hydrofoils. The Royal
Corinthian Yacht Club kindly made its facilities available. The boats were
provided by the following:
David Chinery
16 ft Unicorn-rigged monohull w i t h cross beam
and foils.
Rodney Garrett
High-speed foil stabilized trimaran.
Grogono family
Tornado catamaran on retractable foils.
Phillip Hansford
Model catamaran (full-sized version now complete).
Joe H o o d
Light-weight monohull with " D N " land yacht
rig, and foils.
Bren Ives
F o i l stabiUzed Hornet.
Christopher Rowe
Foil stabiHzed "Shark" monohull.
Also present were John Cockburn, whose " N i g g - b o a t " is performing well
on the Isle-of-Wight, and a variety of theoretical experts including D r . A l a n
Alexander, M a r k Simmonds and John M o r w o o d . The "Chief Dynamicist"
of Planesail, M r . A . Murray, put in an appearance, as did Rodney Macalpine
Downie, and throughout the weekend one could find small groups o f people
arguing one point or another, or quietly absorbing all that was going on.
Saturday morning was devoted to dinghy-park discussions and the process
o f assembling the various machines, most o f which were untried. Rodney
Garrett's SULU
was the best finished, and has an excellent mechanism for
retracting the inverted " T " foils, complete w i t h folding " b o m b doors".
One of the most interesting features i n his boat is the function o f the crew,
who sits with a line attached to the block-and-tackle controlling the angle o f
attack of the leeward foil. The crew alters the lift to suit the conditions from
moment to moment, a surely unique system. D a v i d Chiner's
MANTIS,
which had been " f l y i n g " well at Weir W o o d , was not performing quite so
well on this occasion, perhaps because David's present effort is devoted to a
larger, lighter monohull, based on one hull o f a catamaran, and w i t h a substantial spread of sail. The Grogono-boat ICARUS
suffered disaster before
it had been seen to fly by any o f the 35 people sitting shoulder to shoulder
on the Committee boat. The supporting strut o f the main "tip-over" foil
became dislodged from the keel and produced a large hole in the thin plywood
skin. Rapid repair enabled the boat to become foil-born i n the Burnham
anchorage on Saturday evening, and again on Sunday, but i n its untuned
state, with marginal conditions prevailing, it was outsailed by a brand new
Bell-built Tornado sailed by Mike Day.
Joe H o o d spent Saturday morning finishing off his very beautiful little
monohull, but had the misfortune to damage the hoop-steering front foil
whilst ashore. M a n y o f the ideas i n his boat, especially those concerning
206

the correct use of hght-weight strength, are original and obviously o f great
potential. He became foil-born for a short spell on Saturday evening and
already has various improvements i n hand. Bren Ives and Chris Rowe both
produced most effective foil-stabilizing systems for their displacement hulls,
and there were thus three foil-stabilized and three " f l y i n g " versions to show
the alternative uses o f foils. Last but by no means least, except in size, was
Phillip Hansford's model catamaran, which carries the main load on fixed
front foils, and has transom-hung steering foils at the stern. This 2-ft
model worked superbly, sailing far too fast for the accompanying r o w i n g
dinghy, and at the time of writing (August) the full-size 16-ft version is about
to have its first trials.
Thanks to Yachting W o r l d and Hunting Survey, there was a system o f
most accurate speed measurement available to all the various boats, but the
only fast times recorded (in the light breezes) were by M i k e Day in his entirely
un-foil-borne Tornado. There is no doubt that this meeting is the first o f
a series of annual foil-sailing events, and by the speed of present developments
it may well be the last in which an " o r t h o d o x " boat will be faster than the
best " f o i l - b o r n " .

FLYING

HYDROFOILS

I C A R U S by James Grogono
By kind permission of the Editor Yachts & Yachting

September 1969
38, New Road, London, E.l

The theory of sailing hydrofoils was pioneered in this country, mainly i n

papers published by the Amateur Yacht Research Society. However, most
of the practical development has taken place in the U.S.A., the projects o f
D o n Nigg, W i l l i a m Prior and M r . Baker being prominent. A search of the
literature failed to reveal a successful hydrofoil sailing craft this side o f the
Atlantic. The purpose o f this project was to develop a high-speed hydrofoil
craft with the very simplest boat and equipment. Extra stimulus was provided in Hugh Barkla's article a year ago in Yachts and Yachting ( N o v . 1968,
p. 906):
" I t should be clear why this is no undertaking for the amateur.
The
problem requires the intensity o f study and the effort and skill in design
which only a professional organization of some size could give"!
Sailing on hydrofoils, i f successful, certainly leads to very high speed, the
characteristics of a foil-born craft being not dissimilar to those o f an ice
yacht: the total drag increases only marginally as the speed goes up, while
the force derived from the sails increases rapidly with the increase in apparent
wind. Failure o f any development has not been on these theoretical grounds,
which are not usually disputed, but on practical grounds, the objections
being these:
1 The craft may only be foil-borne over a narrow range o f sea and w i n d
conditions, and may be sluggish and unmanageable off the foils.
2 Launching and handling are difficult because the foils are deep and fragile.
207

3 Lack of any certain commercial outlet.

For these reasons a development was planned on a standard one design
class, the foils being detachable, constructed in wood, and extremely cheap.
The foils should be an optional extra, easily fitted on suitable days, but leaving
the boat " i n class" on other occasions.

208

Photo: Yachting World.

James Grogono's bow foil

The boat
The boat chosen was a Tornado B class catamaran, simply because of its
high power to weight ratio (235 sq ft of sail, 30 ft mast, 300 lb weight), good
in the water, performance, and because foils may be attached more easily to
a catamaran than a monohull. Since speeds up to 15-20 knots are often
reached without foils, the Tornado allows considerable flexibility i n foil size
and configuration.
209

The foils
The fluid dynamics involved i n hydrofoil design (and aeroplane wings) is
complex, but in practical application, gross error can be avoided by use o f
the following guide lines:
1 Virtually all the lift is produced on the upper surface, and this lift is greatly
reduced i f air gains access by travelling down the foil f r o m the water
surface; fences are necessary to prevent this.
2 A l l areas of foil within one chord length o f the lower end, and w i t h i n a
half length of the water surface should be disregarded i n calculating lift.
This is a crude but very useful approximation.
3 Foils operate best at low angles of attack. A l t h o u g h the foil section used
does not generate its maximum lift until the angle o f attack reaches 10
it can be seen that the far more important lift-to-drag ratio is at its maximum
between 0 and 3.
4 Foil cross-section is by no means the most critical factor; the cross section
chosen (from the bewildering variety available!) has a simple arc o f a circle
for its upper surface, and is flat on its lower suface. There is no roundingotf of the edges, and all foils have a thickness to chord ratio of 1 : 11.
(The graph in Fig. 2 is actually for a ratio of 114 which alters the figures
slightly.) This surprisingly simple foil section has proved more than
adequate.

Photo: Yachting World.

James Grogono's rear foil

Foil size and disposition

On the basis of the factors considered above, foils were planned as follows:
1 The main weight-bearing foils, designed to carry 80 per cent o f the 600 l b
all up weight, were required to be 5 ft long and 18 i n chord set at a dihedral
angle o f 38% and an angle of attack (of its flat surface) o f 2 w i t h the
horizontal. These foils carry the main load at a very efficient point on
210

the hft to drag curve, and are easily attached to each hull by means o f
vertical struts, passing though each centreboard case. The unsupported
"deep" end of each main foil is 18 i n long. They must be strong enough
to carry the weight of the whole boat when ashore.
2 The front foils, relatively lightly constructed, are the same length and angle
of dihedral, but the chord is only 10 i n , and their angle of attack is 4 .
This greater angle of attack is critical; it has the disadvantage of taking the
operating point on the lift-to-drag graph just beyond its o p t i m u m , but it
provides a readily available reserve lift to combat pitching. A n y tendency to

23 45 67 8
AHCLE OF ATTACK.
FIG.2

LIFT-DRAC

COEPriCIENT
ANGLE
DISPOSABLC

RATIO

LIFT

PLOTTED

AGAINST

OF A T T A C K

ORTHODOX

HULL

SUSPEMDEO

MAIM

CROSS

FROM

BEAM.

1 0 -

FIG.l
THE MOS: IMPRACTICAL
EVER

DESIGNED

SAILING

CRAFT

(c. 1958)

1 inCH- 1 FOOT

FRONT FOIL.

BACK FOIL.

FIG 3
PLAN VIEW
OF S T R U T

211

OF FOILS
AND F E N C E

SHOWING

SITES

ATTACHMENTS.

pitch is offset by the increased immersion of the front foils as the bow goes
d o w n ; also, by the difference in the angle of attack between front and back
foils, the stern will go down first (in theory!). The well-marked dihedral
angle (compared with aeroplane wings) is necessary to let the foil " r u n deep"
away from losses caused by surface effects and air entrainment and it also
provides lateral stability. In addition it facilitates the most elegant of all the
hydrofoil advantagesthe fact that only the m i n i m u m required area o f foil
is immersed at any given moment: the higher the speed, the higher the boat
rides. There are two critical speeds for the present arrangement.
One is
10 knots, which is "lift o u t " speed, accidently confirmed to be exactly correct
by a motor-boat speedometer during towing trials. The other is 20 knots
which is the point at which the vertical struts clear the water, the boat then
riding on the unsupported inner ends of the foils. Considerably higher speeds
than these are anticipated.
Foil c o n s t r u c t i o n
The stimulus to "get off the drawing board" was provided by John James,
school friend and subsequent Olympic rowing medallist, who provided half
the capital, more than half the man-hours o f labour, and prevented numerous
blunders by being obstinately unprepared to take any ideas or calculations
on trust. The foils and extra long rudder blades were laminated out o f 3 i n
X I in strips of Douglas fir, through the expert advice of Brian Saffery Cooper,
and their shaping was a pleasant and straightforward task in carpentry. Our
inexperience in laminating led to the laying-up of likely looking pieces before
the design was complete, and all units went through a "pre-design-construction
-stage", with some accidental changes in design as a result. In the later
stages we had much help from John Fowler and Dr. E. B. Grogono. especially
from the latter's excellent work-shop, and ability to sharpen blunt planes.
Extra labour in the rather desperate last few days before the "deadline"
included that of a complete stranger, rash enough to walk up the drive with
a couple of hours to spare, and promptly employed in painting and making
attachment chocks. The total weight of foils and supporting struts is 80 lbs.
Sailing
The completed foils were taken to Burnham and attached to the boat by
brass screws and wooden chocks, the whole process taking about three hours.
At that time the launching trolley had not been adapted to carry boat plus
foils, so launching was accomplished by enlisting the aid of eight strong men,
encouraged with a little whisky.
ICARUS
sails fairly well while not on the foils, although rather reluctant to
alter course quickly or carry her way through the eye of the wind. The bow
starts lifting at 5 knots, and it seems best to move the crew weight well
forward between this point and " l i f t o u t " , which occurs at 10 knots. The
sensation of lifting out is most exhilarating, and requires a wind speed o f only
10-12 knots. (The maximum wind speed recorded on the day on which the
photographs were taken was 12 knots). Once foil-born there is a dramatic
increase in speed and manoeuvrability. The boat also feels very stable on the
foils, especially when sailing to windward, and i f corrections o f fore and aft
or lateral t r i m are required, there is time enough for the crew to make them.
High speeds have been attained, but not accurately measured as yet.
212

MANTIS

September 1969

The Cop, Buckland, Betchworth, Surrey

L e t t e r f r o m : David Chinery

18 September, 1969

Dear John,
This craft was built by my cousin and myself in about 4 months, and first
introduced to water some 8 weeks ago. Y o u w i l l notice the influence o f
D o n Nigg, but then I had read every conceivable article that I could lay my
hands on.
Before giving my impressions, some brief details:
L O A 16 ft overall, beam 16 ft.
F o i l area lOJ sq ft. 20 per cent front, 80 per cent rear. F r o n t foil steering.
A l l foils retracting. F o i l section precisely as described i n your j o u r n a l .

The first inon-retractablej forward foil

Now let me describe the most fascinating experience o f my short yachting

career, an experience which left me hoarse from shouting with exhilaration.
A superb sunny day in Chichester harbour. Very light breeze. We
launched the boat for the second time at the boat yard at Hayling Island,
the first was on a local puddle.
Gingerly raised the sail and proceeded, gently running w i t h the w i n d into
the harbour proper. The spectacle raised many comments from those
thousands of dinghies buzzing about and I tried to look busy and intelligent
as little lads o f 8 and 9 buzzed round w i t h insolent ease i n their Puffins.
I t was as much as I could do to hold the brute on a straight course. Then
came the Moment o f T r u t h . Eased onto a broad reach w i t h a view to coming
into wind to tack. Hopeless. G o t i n irons immediately and could not get
out.
Fortunately the escort boat, a HINA, which incidentally sails like the
clappers, was near at hand so I clambered aboard to have lunch. Then we
213

decided to tow. We removed the 4 hp outboard from the HINA and fixed
it to the little pram dinghy. We let out some 70 ft o f line, got going . . . our
speed? Hard to estimate but no more than 3^ knots. N o t enough to fly.
By now we were all feeling a bit despondent. I n some kind of desperation
1 suddenly heaved on the line and to my j o y the hydrofoil very quickly,
without any fuss, just lifted out of the water. Imagine my excitement. I
then realized that quite suddenly all resistance had gone. Once up on the
foils, the craft just slid over the water and 1 was able easily to haul towards
me hand over fist without any effort. A l l this time the hydrofoils slid grace-

David Chinery's MANTIS

being towed

fully along getting nearer and nearer as the tow rope got shorter and shorter.
When 1 ran out of rope, 1 let the whole lot out and repeated the performance.
1 guess the speed would have been about 4-4J knots. A very low take off
speed but the boat was empty. I had calculated that with the total weight
of 390 lbs, take-off speed should be 5^ knots.
Next we removed all the foils, bolted two small floats to the ends o f the
cross beam and added a normal type rudder. I n other words we had converted in a matter o f some | hour whilst anchored in the middle of the harbour,
our hydrofoil into a trimaran.
We got a sail in that afternoon, o f sorts, but because our floats were too
small, they tended to depress too easily which made the cross beam drag.
The boat was still difficult to get to come about so we resolved to add a
centre board.
The boat, when erected on its foils on the back lawn looked (as an interested
observer said) like a praying Mantis. I n fact this name is very apt as one is
always praying for the right weather conditions and this is the drawback w i t h
this type of craft. Hydrofoils have to be made first as a displacement boat
for light airs and only secondly as a foil stabilized craft in brisk winds and
214

MANTIS

sailing happily as a displacement boat

finally as a flying hydrofoil in good stiff breezes. It was very humiliating to

sit in the boat, slowly finding yourself drifting backwards in irons, totafly
unable to get out, waiting for help from the escort dinghy, whilst all the little
M i r r o r dinghies and Cadets made circles round us. 1 don't want to sound
too depressing here, but i f members make D o n Nigg's boat exactly as he d i d
in the published photographs, then they're in trouble before they start. A l l
foils must be made to retract totally clear of the water in such a way that the
boat automatically becomes low drag and displacement craft. I f one or
more of the foils is used for steering, then alternative methods must be found
for steering when the foils are retracted.
On our third outing, the hydrofoil looked very different to the photographs.
Now, all our foils can retract clear o f the water. The front foil retracts i n t o
the hull. The two rear foils retract upwards in a horizontal plane, lying
snugly underneath the cross beam. Each foil operates separately and i n dependently. T w o floats are fixed permanently to the beam whilst sailing.
The design has therefore improved 100 per cent.
We have only to carry two basic units to the water.
retracted and the beam with its foils retracted.

The hull, w i t h its foil

I t is splendid to be able to launch the boat into shallow water. Once under
way, the rear foil can be lowered by simply releasing one halyard and pulling
another and fixing in a j a m cleat. The lift generated is considerable and it is
215

Front foilsworking position

216

fascinating to lean to windward. During tiiis particular outing I remember

when it was my turn, 1 somehow came across a F i n n dinghy being sailed very
energetically, held to 45 degrees, the helmsman sitting out, b o t t o m very wet
with spray all over the place. I proceeded to overtake him slowly but surely,
I was sitting right down in the cockpit casually steering with my right hand,
smoking and holding my pipe with the left and facing forward. Remember
all this with only 60 sq ft of sail. The Finn didn't seem amused. The ice
217

yacht sail certainly developes tremendous power. But alas not enough to
fly the hydrofoil. We shall need at least another 100 sq ft or so which is
necessary to overcome the tremendous initial drag when all foils are lowered.
Eventually we repeated the first outing's performance. M y cousin climbed
into the hydrofoil, my brother and I on the HINA, now fitted w i t h a 20 hp
outboard. We proceeded to tow. The craft with my cousin aboard came
out easily, so at least he has had " T H E " experience. A l l that remains to do
to the first prototype is to find more power (sail area) and improve the displacement sailing characteristics, and then . . .
D A V I D CHINERY.

54, Carshalton Grove, Sutton, Surrey

L e t t e r f r o m : Peter G. C h i n e r y

MANTIS Mark

May 1970

Dear D r . M o r w o o d ,
The conception of a car top Sailing Hydrofoil with retracting foils, able
to sail on or off the foils equally well, has been with us from the beginning,
for the number of days in a season one can " f l y " must be limited. Therefore
a boat that can sail in light airs, as well as on windy days, is essential.
David Chinery first told me of his idea for a Sailing Flying Hydrofoil in
May '69, and offered to finance and design it, i f 1 would convert paper into
timber. This 1 agreed to do, and MANTIS I was launched 8 weeks later.
Basically the craft is a monohull fitted with a cross beam with floats at
each end; and foils fitted under each side, a foil at the front, and rear steering.
Originally the craft was designed to suit a D N ice yacht rig with front
steering, but this was discarded early on, as front steering as a displacement
boat did not work. As it got heavier w i t h all the numerous modifications
arrived by trial and error, it now has a Unicorn rig, 26 ft mast with 150 sq ft
of sail.
Constructed in marine ply and parana pine in my back garden, it t o o k
80 hours to construct and launch, and a further 170 hours work on mods,
to get it to come about and " f l y " . The craft has only visited the water 15
times. The rear foils were made of Japanese oak originally, 9 in wide, thickness
to chord ratio 9 : 1 . This has all been planed away now leaving 1 in Marine
ply which was added to the underside as the foil was modified. The foil
width now is 18 in
6 in long, thickness to chord ratio 1 3 : 1 , top section
a true arc. Launching presents no problem for with the foils retracted it
slips easily from a launching trolley, or can be assembled at the waters edge.
Sailing without the foils as a normal desplacement boat, it behaves fairly
well. Going about is slow but sure. When the wind tends to bury the lee
float it is possible to lower the foil and sail "foil-stabilized", when the performance is a great deal better. To go about, we retract the foil and go about
in the normal way. W i t h all foils down, going about is impossible for when
the craft comes head to w i n d it stays there, drifting backwards helplessly.
W i t h the front foil retracted I have coaxed it round a couple o f times w i t h
great difficulty. Steering with all foils down could be better, but I think a
weathercocking front foil would help this.
218

Up she comesMANT/S

When saihng a H y d r o f o i l , one needs several pairs o f hands, especially on

preparing to go about when the foils are down. Whilst maintaining course,
one must retract the front foil, let go one halyard on the windward foil and
haul it up with the other halyard. Reach across to lee and do the same.
Come about and reverse the process. I n a high w i n d this is exciting. I t is
impossible to lower the rear foils while moving forward, as the upward
pressure is too great to overcome. Procedure w o u l d seem to be thus: sail to
deep water off the foils, come head to wind, lower rear foils, head off and
lower front foil.
219

By its 13tii outing it was beginning to become a family joke, each time we
arrived back from a day's sailing they asked " D i d it fly today" only to be
told " N o , but it will when we've done this and that to i t " . So we were
delighted to have some success this time and be able to reply "Yes it d i d " .
1 was at the helm on this occasion, trying to " w i l l " it up. The wind was
very gusty. It needed coaxing along to get enough speed, for to sheet in
hard merely buried the beam on the lee side in a gust and put the brakes on.
The wind increased a little, I eased the sheet; then gradually sheeted i n .
The speed increased. A l l at once MANTIS
lifted; just hke going up i n a
lift, sweetly and cleanly. I sheeted in harder, and as the wind dropped back,
down she came. This happened several times, the wind dying just when
needed. This is the problem of sailing on a lake. The lifting out process
is immediate. Once enough lift is generated, out she comes. The front foil
rises first, then with a great surge one is airborne. It's a great feeling to be
sitting practically on the water one minute, and riding about three feet above
it the next. Once " F l y i n g " there is a marked increase in speed, and as the
apparent wind moves forward, one sheets in harder. The lee foil is nearly
all immersed, whilst riding just on the tip of the other, due to heel. 1 fitted
two seats just behind the beam to get the weight as far back as possible for
"flying". This was quite successful in helping to lift the bow.
I have just started work on the MANTIS Mark II, a much more sophisticated
shapely looking craft, and I hope a much improved performer. David and
myself will bring this boat to the next Weir W o o d meeting in October.
PETER G . C H I N E R V .

MANTIS
by David C h i n e r y

August 1970
The Cop, Buckland, Betchworth, Surrey

When 1 look at MANTISfully

rigged, lying on my lawn, it seems absolutely incredible that this machine can actually raise herself from the water
like some monster swan, taking off and glide across the surface supported
only on three sticks of woodeach shaped with a simple aerofoil section,
curved on top, flat underneath. Yet this is the power of a foil.
The boat, fully rigged, without the crew weighs some 350 lbs and when
lying at rest in the water the total immersed area of foil is about 20 sq f t
16 sq ft for the two rear foils and 4 sq ft for the front. The rear foils are
6 ft long ^ 18 in wide. The aspect ratio is 13 : 1 at 0' incidence. The front
foil assembly comprises 4 separate foils each 1 sq ft. They are hinged to
one another and when retracted lie flush in a special dagger plate box mounted
in the bow of the boat.
Flying, the boat rides on two square feet at the front and just the tips of the
rear foils, say 4 sq ft in total, but this varies according to heel. The angle of
attack of the front foil is variable. It can be as little as 5' for a slower lift-off
but 8 is safer in that it rides the waves better, and, should the nose become
slightly depressed, has more immediate lift to get it up again. The penalty
for this, of course, is increased drag, hence a lower potential top speed. I n
220

ideal glassy conditions a 5 attack would be suitable and would give us a very
good lift drag ratio but has lower recovery characteristics, obviously.
The boat balances just in front of the rear foils, and the crew can balance
the boat by moving his weight backwards and forwards from this point. As
the rear foils take all the weight of the craft it means that when " f l y i n g " they
become like a pivot point of a see-saw. The front foil assembly lifts very
little of the boat's weight, but rather "feels" the water and guides the main
foils angle of attack. I f the nose is depressed the rear follows suit due to a
negative angle of attack and vice versa, also the front foil counteracts the
forward thrust of the sail.
221

When flying, the boat assumes an angle o f heel of about 8 which means
the lee foil is fairly deeply immersedproviding great lift whilst the weather
foil, barely in the water, just provides the necessary amount of righting
movement.
The sheer beauty of 45' angled foils is that the more the boat heelsthe
more lift the lee foil generates because it becomes more horizontal to the
water's surface. A t the same time the weather foil assumes a more vertical
attitude to the water's surface and loses lift. This simple geometric configuration adjusts automatically to increasing or decreasing side pressures
from the wind, and requires N O help from the helmsman who has enough
on his hands anyway trying to steer.
Once foil borne, the acceleration of the craft is tremendous, yet Peter, my
cousin, the only man to have flown the craft so far, is not all that aware of this
acceleration. I t was the cine camera that demonstrated this point to us. 1
was filming from an attending motor boat and got some good shots o f the
boat gradually lifting out of the water and once foil borne it shot away at a
remarkable paceit must have doubled its speed in as many yards. 1 would
not predict how fast MANTIS could fly but I am convinced that breaking
the 30 knots barrier is going to be relatively simple. The problems will
come when we start doing 40 or 50 knots when cavitation might become a
problemespecially with surface-piercing foils. But we must wait and see.
A simple demonstration of the power of water on a curved surface is t o
hold an ordinary kitchen spoon very gently between your thumb and first
finger at the extreme end of the handle, so that the spoon sways like a pendulum.
Then turn on the cold water tap and gently offer the curved bowl o f the
spoon to the water flow. Immediately the vertical flow of water touches the
middle a force comes into action and sends the spoon deeper into the water

It is possible to capsize MANT/S

222

stream. N o w , by slowly moving your hiand away from the water flow you
will find the bowl of the spoon will still cling to the water and the harder the
tap is turned on the more the spoon will stick. I t was this simple phenomenon that encouraged me to design hydrofoilsespecially after reading so
much about them through the A Y R S .
Checking through my records I discovered that a year ago I first put the
design of MANTIS on paper and three weeks later Peter Chinery started to
build it. We obviously learnt a lot during the following 12 months and
sometimes our brains ached with thinking of new ideas and trying to solve
problems. Designing flying hydrofoils is rather like what cynics have been
heard to say about drugsproduce a drug to cure some ailment or other and
then produce another drug to cure the side effects of the first and so on.
Our main problem was not getting the boat to flythat was simple, but rather
to get the boat to behave itself when not on the foils. The plan shows the
craft in its final state but this can be improved upon by making the hull longer,
at the front to increase buoyancy and at the rear to obtain a better leverage
with the rudder.
I think we must have moved the dagger box backwards and forwards in
the hull about 5 times and the mast backwards and forwards another 10.
I f we moved it too far forward we could get the boat to come about beautifully
as a displacement boat but got too much pressure at the nose whilst trying to
fly. Now, at least, it works in both modes and we can improve its characteristics as a displacement craft. I n fact, MANTIS
MARK II is under construction now. When Peter and 1 were messing about at Weir W o o d , people
were heard to sympathetically cluck their tongues with a sort of sad amazementthey think we are mad so it's good to have the A Y R S close by for
support and encouragement.
There's one question that bothers me I
When I met John M o r w o o d
on the A Y R S Stand at the last Boat Show he asked me " W h a t speed do you
want to get out of water?" and I replied looking somewhat amazed, " O b viously one wants to get out as quickly as possible." He then asked " W h y ? "
His simple pertinent question set me thinking along completely different lines
and, i f my thinking is right, MANTIS
MARK II is already obsolete and
what a depressing thought that is. It seems to me that there are two basic
foil methodsI don't mean configurations, rather concepts:
a Very large foil areas
b Very small foil areas.
Assuming that there are two identical craftone fitted with (a) and one
with (b). Now, if the craft's foils are immersed and set at the same bearing
at precisely the same time: (a) has got a tremendous amount of drag and will
be a slow starter but will have a very early lift out (approximately walking
speed)MANTIS has lifted out whilst a M i r r o r dinghy has been overtaking
it yet once up on the foils the acceleration is very rapid, (b) has much less
drag and therefore will get away much faster than boat (a) but it still means
that this craft has to drag its foils through the water up to speeds of 10, 12 or
15 knots before the foils become effective and generate enough lift-off to fly
the huU, by which time, theoretically, boat (a) has now been flying much.
223

MANTIS

mark //

much longer and, though having a much slower start, is accelerating fast and
has, therefore, overtaken boat (b). I f one agrees w i t h this premise, it means
that the whole concept of flying hydrofoils could change.
We could build a much more stable hull, do away with those vulnerable
outriggers and, heigh presto, a non-capsizable boat. The section through
the hull will be a sort of flat egg shape with a small retractable bulb keel
which winds up like that on the TEMPEST.
The two rear foils w o u l d
retract upwards and the geometry would be similar to that of a mechanical
road excavator. The front foil w i l l be similar to MANT/S
but capable of
steering and retractable. N o w , we add a nice wing sail fully battened,
which upon releasing a halyard would collapse into a slit on the top o f the
hull and give us automatic reefing. N o w , we have produced a boat that
could very well win the O S T A R .
224

The crew would sit under a nice aeroplane hatch cockpit cover which could
be opened for ventilation, or have some arrangement o f Venetian blinds to
stop the sun, and the sides of the boat could lift down for fine weather sailing
or whilst i n portrather like the front o f a troop transporter. But i t seems
to me that safely inside the machine, no matter what the w i n d conditions,
with all the foils retracted upwards and forwards and the little bulb keel
lowered, it would right itself from any position automatically without the aid
of a crew. Whilst I love the idea of trimarans, somehow the idea o f sailing
in one terrifies me, but then I am just a coward and must confess that I have
never been to sea before anyway.

225

CHAPTER X V I I I
A FLYING HYDROFOIL

CRAFT

Designed, Built and O w n e d by Joe H o o d

August 1970

I I Deeds Grove, High Wycombe, Bucl<s, England.

H u l l length, overall
H u l l length, L W L
M a i n H u l l beam

16 ft
15 ft 3 in
18 i n

Cross plank beam

Total weight
(including crew)
Sail area ( D N rig)

8 ft

250 lbs
6-5 sq metres
(65 sq ft)
M a i n foils retract under plank. Front foil retracts (pivoted) to clear the keel,
thus letting the craft run ashore under sail.
This boat has been designed on independant lines from other hydrofoils,
being based on land yachts. Joe H o o d is a member of Great Gransden
Land Yacht Club and he was inspired by the article by Edmond Bruce in
Chapter X , (page 121.)

ABOVE: Joe Hood's DN land yacht on water receives a helping hand

from a rescue boat. The wings dragged In the water and the bow
foil steering broke.

226

The main aims of the project are:

1 To produce a saihng, flying hydrofoil with a top speed of at least twice
the true windspeed and able to be sailed in strong winds, single-handed.
2 T o be carried on a car top r o o f rack.
3 By substituting wheels, to use the craft as a land/sand yacht.
The craft uses the D . N . Class mast, boom and sail.
The construction is mostly in 3 m m birch plywood.
The hull is stressed
plywood construction, as is the front foil. H i g h stress points are re-inforced
with resin and carbon filaments.
After making the first cross plank o f 8 ft i n length, another cross plank of
16 ft in length was made to give complete "balancing o u t " , i f the 8 ft one
was found to be too short for easy handling.
The hull weight came out at 30 lbs but was later filled completely w i t h a
mixture of expanded polystyrene chipping and a compatible foam i n situ mix,
increasing the weight by about another 10 lbs.

The foils
The general configuration is that of D o n Nigg, with two main surface-piercing
side foils and forward steering. The two main foils are similar to those o f
Don Nigg or James Grogono.
The forward foil is a semicircular shape, attached to a horizontal elliptical
cross beam pivoting at the stem. It is made from plywood, reinforced with
carbon fibre and resin.

B u r n h a m on Crouch
When Joe brought his boat to the A Y R S sailing meeting, we were all very
much impressed with the loving care and attention to detail. I t really was
a beautiful j o b . Unfortunately, the hull was a bit lacking in buoyancy and
dragged its transom so that speeds for take-ofl" were only achieved once.
Also the forward foil system had the opposite of castor action and steering
became difficult.
However, the boat sailed well enough as a displacement
craft and a limited success was achieved at that stage.

Joe H o o d writes:
It was of course not intended to attempt to fly the craft at all the first time
out, as the crowded moorings at Burnham, together with the fact that the
craft was not insured, and with a complete lack o f experience i n sailing on
foils would have made any deliberate attempt to fly foolhardy, to say the
least.
When an unexpected puff of wind arrived the craft came unstuck very
quickly, and there did not seem to be any transition from displacement to
planing, to foil-borne. I t was more of a missile launch so to speak.
This was when the steering trouble developed, and as the craft was heading
straight for a very solid moored cruiser, things got pretty hectic for a few
seconds. Fortunately, the temporary steering lines and tiller attachment
stretched sufficiently to take away steering control completely and the craft
headed into wind and stopped before any harm was done.
227

228

This particular craft i n common, it would seem, w i t h other sailing flying

foils, was very prone to get into irons, unless a fair speed was built up first.
Worse still, she would not boxhaul, and was none too easy to gybe around.
Subsequent study of a movie talcen from the shore showed clearly that:
1 There was insufficient rudder (foil) area to provide adequate control at
slow speed. There is of course high drag from the outer main foil when
tacking (one tends to pivot on the inward foil).
2 The huU is dragged sideways through the water when turning and a deep
narrow huh (as was used) naturally resists lateral motion. This latter fact
is important i f full control is to be achieved at displacement speeds.
3 The cross-plank beam of 16 ft increases the drag moment when turning.
This length of plank is not strictly necessary to provide heehng stability.
The D N sail is of low aspect ratio, and the centre o f effort is probably no
more than 6 ft high. A cross-plank o f about 12 ft would be sufficient to
provide full automatic heeling stability. I n any case crew weight i n the
correct place can compensate for any lack of beam of plank. I t w o u l d
be more correct also to call the cross-plank a wing, for i n this particular
craft it was designed to produce aerodynamic lift of about 150 lb at a
speed of 30 mph.
As Major General Parham pointed out i n an A Y R S article, use can be made
of "ground effect". Lifts of 5 to 6 pounds per square foot can be expected
at speeds of 30 mph. The particular wing used had an area of about 30 ft^.
It was set at a positive angle of incidence so as to provide not only aerodynamic lift but also to act in a similar manner to D o n Niggs' horizontal
foil strut, and prevent the wing tip digging i n the water to produce a cartwheel
capsize. I n an effort to produce buoyancy, the thickness o f chord at wing-tip
was 4 i n , and in practice the high-drag tended to cancel out any benefit o f
static buoyancy. True, in Don's craft he could walk out to the ends o f his
cross-plank, but does one need to?
These then are some of the reasons for redesigning some parts of this
particular craft. A new wing of 12 ft beam (span) has been constructed, and
a new front foil system and h u l l is being made w i t h a view to solving some
of the problems outlined.
229

A pivoting plank is to be used as an aid to sitting (hiking) out, and the

main foils are now knock up, (in a similar manner to a dinghy centreboard).
They still can be retracted when sailing, and also the front foil pivots up and
forward to retract for easy beaching.
1 give many thanks to the enthusiastic A Y R S supporters at the Burnham
meeting; to Capt Cockburn, and the lads from Liverpool who lost a night's
sleep to motor down and then spent all day helping to screw various bits on
my craft; even more, supplying cans of liquid refreshment when I would not
stop for lunch.
James G r o g who, very busy with his own foiled Tornado, nevertheless
found time to take us out on his cruiser on the Sunday to watch with interest
the time/speed trials. I got some interesting movie film of SULU,
ICARUS,
and MANTIS performing.

SUNBIRD

|i

(Inverted T stabilisers)
by C h r i s Rowe
28 Rowhedge Road, Colchester, Essex, England
This hydrofoil boat, though obviously triggered off by some A Y R S ideas,
is the only one o f its kind. A n alloy tube is fitted across a single SHARK
catamaran hull and inside this tube, a tube 8 feet long is placed and it is
able to turn inside the shorter tube.
A t both ends of the long tube, struts lead down to the water and inverted T
foils, whose angle of attack is controlled by turning the inside tube. This is
done by block and tackle to another tube which spans the tube attached to
the boat and is connected to the long tube by cranks.

A t rest, the foils' centres are at the L W L and the lee one immerses on heeling
and keeps the boat upright. As made for this prototype, the foils were on
the thick side and had quite a lot of buoyancy. Each has 34 sq ft o f area
and is set at an angle of dihedral of 30.
The sail area is 90 sq ft and a centreboard is used to prevent leeway.
The first sail t o o k place at the A Y R S hydrofoil meeting at Burnham-onCrouch. I n order to prevent a capsize, inflatable buoyancy was used at the
ends o f the cross beam but the boat was so stable that at no time was the lee
foil seen to be driven under by the wind pressure. Obviously, the w i n d
force was being completely "balanced o u t " by the foils and the difficulty was
in too much stabihty.
Chris Rowe says that the main problem was with the rear steering. He is
now building a lighter hull w i t h front steering, using the same foils w i t h
more immersion.
There is a possibility that the surface-piercing foils used by most A Y R S
members have severe losses which would be avoided by inverted T foils.
There is thus every chance that Chris has a hydrofoil configuration which
may prove, eventually, to be the best possible and we l o o k forward to seeing
him again at Weir W o o d with his most fascinating craft.

FOIL S T A B I L I Z E D

HORNET

by Bren Ives and John Potts

7, High Street, Borough Green, Kent

LOA
16 ft
T o t a l beam
13 ft 9 i n
Beam (hull)
4 ft 3 in
Sail area
120 sq ft
GOLDCREST,
an early Hornet, had two holes in her when I bought her.
Otherwise she was soundand complete with standard Hornet sails^jib
and mainsail. This gave me a narrow beam dinghy with 120 sq ft o f sail.
Never having sailed anything nearer to a Hornet than a Wayfarer, I thought
she should be a good craft to test foil stabilizationwithout using the plank.
I was primarily interested in surface piercing foils without floats.
I t was largely due to the advice of John M o r w o o d and encouragement o f
his friend Gerald H o l t o m that I was persuaded to start. John sent me advice
as to the type of foil to use and gave me the chord and proportions to try.
He also invited me, together with my friend John Potts, to see a demonstration
of Gerald's model yacht. This was fitted with two foils. One was a H i g h
Aspect Ratio foil and the other a L o w Aspect Ratio foil. Before being fitted
with them it had constantly capsized. W i t h either foil it sailed almost
upright across the pond.
Gerald was enthused over my idea to try and make full size foils for the
Hornet. His enthusiasm and John Morwood's advice persuaded us to try
to repair the boat and fit her with foils i n time for the A Y R S H y d r o f o i l
Meeting at Burnham, at the end of May. As it was Cup Final Day, we had
a bare six weeks. John Potts did most of the foil construction. We drew
the plan on his garage floor the next morning, and decided on ply construction
filled with polystyrene foam. Meanwhile, 1 persuaded the local blacksmith
to weld us a framework to span the boat incorporating a small amount o f
231

toe i n . Also he made us some steel pipe clamps and a couple o f tubular
members to raise and lower the foils, and to lock them in position.
We aimed to set the foils at 55 approximately, so that when the boat
heeled flat on its bottom, the angle would not come below 45. We realized
that steel pipe was not really suitable for our purpose, but it was cheap.
It is much too heavy and we hope to reduce the weight considerably i n later
versions. Having no idea of the maths involved, I could not even guess at
the stresses, but after listening to various suggestions of box girders, and even
a 9 ft X 9 in piece of timber, we settled for 1 in pipe. I hope it lasts the
season!

A foil and pipe framework

Y o u must appreciate that the foils and their supporting framework and
supports were independent of the dinghy. We had minor problems fixing
this down to the boat. The framework fitted across either side o f the sliding
plankand incidentally prevented us from using the plank even i f we had
wanted to. This was a measure o f our confidence in A Y R S ideas! The
foils were finished at 2 a.m., exactly four weeks after meeting John M o r w o o d
and Gerald H o l t o m at Hythe.
The following day we took the boat to Eastbourne and, with a bit of friendly
help from the members o f the Royal Soverign Club, manoeuvred her d o w n
to the beach. It took quite a while to fix the framework to the boat with our
first methodNo. 10 woodscrews and bits of odd w o o d ! The wind was
off shoreso we pushed off and drifted down w i n d with the foils retracted
until there was enough depth. Then we got our first shock. John could not
move the leeward foil down. He sweated for a minute or t w o and then
232

gave up. The water pressure was too great. Eventuallystill going d o w n
wind we realized the answer. I luffed up and they then went down quite
easily.
The breeze was almost force 4 gusting to 5. Immediately b o t h foils were
down, we hardened the sheetsand she sailed off w i t h negligible heel. She
tacked beautifully and the maximum heel we could develop was w i t h the top
of the leeward foil just submerged.
When you realize that the foils are
pivoted 6 in below the framework which spans the gunwalesand when you
further realise our total beam was 14 ftwe were not heeling as much as we
had expected to. The steering was light w i t h slight weather helm. Subsequently at Burnham we tried lifting the windward foil. This I imagine
improved her speed slightly, but gave us the penalty of lee helm. The
centreboard made no difference.
The Hornet readily came on to a plane in the gusts and remained just as
stable as before. We tried to offset the heeling by sitting out to leeward at

Burnhamand it made no difference. However, the w i n d was not as strong

as on our first test. John Potts even used his toe straps to hang out to
leeward, with no effect.
Our thanks to all the people who have encouraged us and shown interest.
Not a few were completely uninterested i n stability. I t seems to us that
stabihty is the first requirement before the quest for speed begins. I am
convinced that the method described w o u l d enable a racing dinghy to be
cruised with safety. Correspondence w o u l d be welcomeparticularly any
practical suggestions on making a lighter framework that will not be too
expensive.

LEARNING TO SAIL A

HYDROFOIL

by Captain J . C . Cocl<burn, D.S.C., R.N. (Ret.)

St. Helens, Isle of Wight, Hampshire, England
Fascinated by a picture of D o n N i g g doing 20 knots in his FL YING
TRAPEZE
which appeared in the AYRS journal No. 66A (shown i n Chapter X I V ) ,
I bought the design, and built an exactly similar boat last winter.
The construction of this machine is not difficult, even to a ham-handed
sailor like myself. The front rudder and foils, however, which control the
performance of the entire system, requires very great accuracy. The main,
or rear foils, do not.
The boat was launched in May 1970no one, incidentally, believing that
it would w o r k !
Towing trials were carried out to prove the balance and angle o f attack
of the foils. T o avoid disturbance from the wake of the launch, i t is better
to push w i t h an outboard powered inflatable. These "push trials" resulted
exactly as the designer, D o n Nigg, had predicted, namely that at about 5 knots
the boat starts to lift out, nose first, followed shortly by a complete Uft out.
Now, unless you have a power boat always i n attendance, you will spend
far more time off the foils, looking for wind, than you do flying. Y o u have
to live with the first to enjoy the second.
The boat will not come about at " t a x i " speeds, owing to foil-drag, and
must be either gybed r o u n d or boxhauled. Gybing is less sweat, but i n either
case you lose some ground laboriously gained to windward.
I found out quite early that, in winds when a " l i f t - o u t " was possible and
at taxi speed, i.e. making to windward off the foils, the end o f the beam
dug i n so far that the boat would come to an embarrassing halt. T o cure
this, I have added an inflated car inner tube to each end o f the beam. W i t h
this additional buoyancy, and by sitting astride the beam well out (the seat
is only for flying), I can now operate in much higher winds, and get back to
my mooring.
Another early snag was the fitting of the rear foils. These are of oak and
very heavy (surely there must be a lighter material?). Carrying them down
the beach, rowing them off against the w i n d i n a rubber dinghy, struggling
in the waves to button them on, and, later, the whole thing i n reverse, t o o k
all the fun out of the game. I have now hinged them on the leading edge.
234

t.

Captain Cockburn's Don Nigg boat, just finished

below the Safety F o i l , so that they retract forwards and upwards into the
triangle formed by the hull and the beam, where they are protected by the
stem to beam-end stay. ( W i l l they warp? I don't know). Some small
accuracy in angle o f attack may have been lost by doing this, but at the speeds
achieved so far it does not appear to have made any difference.
You soon get the knack of saihng at taxi speeds, but you must become really
proficient in this role before you attempt to fly the boat.
There are no " H a n d l i n g Instructions", no "Pilot's Notes" to tell you how
to set about flying this machine. Like the Wright Brothers, y o u can only
advance as you learn.
Now, much loving care and time goes into building a craft like this one,
and it would be a great pity to break it up, or hit someone else's boat, through
ignorance or bravado. I therefore recommend a "Softly, Softly, catchee
monkey" approach to flying, with attempts on successful short flights i n the
lower wind bracket.

First you discover the best conditions for lift out. This appears to be a
reach w i t h the sail well off. Y o u steam up and d o w n waiting for the wind,
gybing r o u n d at each end. W i n d comes and the bow lifts out onto the small
lower Vee foil. H o l d everything, and a good puff comes. The sail takes
hold, and the whole boat leaps forward as the tail end comes out. Once up,
the speed is such that y o u w i l l r u n quite a way up on the foils even after the
puff has left you. Once on the foils, the ride is extremely smooth and silent.
There is great stability and, so far, no inclination to bury the lee foil. The
steering becomes finger light, and it is very easy to over-control and zig-zag.
When clear o f the water, y o u can haul i n the sheet, and, although it is
early to say so, I t h i n k she w i l l make to windward.
When building, I thought that Nigg's design was too "engineered", and
unnecessarily strong and heavy. N o w , having flown quite a lot of times for
short distances, I realize that I was entirely wrong (Grogono take note!).
The stresses on the craft are enormous. N o t the " D r a g " stresses for, w i t h
a lift/drag ratio o f 30 : 1, these are comparatively small. It's the " L i f t "
stresses on the main foils, which carry nearly all the weight o f the boat and
driver, and, in particular the twist stress applied by the front foil system to
the hull.
237

I n conclusion, these are very early days i n the experiment, and many o f my
theories may prove to be quite wrong. But, of one thing I am absolutely
convinced, namely, that this is a most t h r i l l i n g and rewarding sport.

A FLYING HYDROFOIL
by Philip Hansford

CATAMARAN

53 Sandy Ridge, Chislehurst, Kent

The boat was only launched in August, 1970 and, at the time of writing,
only brief trials have been carried out. In the first trials, the w i n d was
strong and the craft lifted out easily. Once on the foils, there was good
stability, but it was necessary to move one's weight as far aft as possible to
prevent a bow down attitude when broad reaching.
A t present, a good breeze is needed to become foil-borne but it is hoped
to improve the light wind performance w i t h a more suitable mast and sail.
Construction
The cat has 15 ft hulls, produced by the " t o r t u r e d p l y " method. The cross
beams are mast section extrusions. The fore beam carries the main foils

Philip Hansford's flying hydrofoil catamaran

238

which are outboard of the hulls. The rear foils are mounted on inverted
pintles and are used for steering.
The foils are all of circular arc upper surface w i t h a flat lower side, made
of mahogany. The r i g is a " F i r e b a l l " mainsail, set on a non-standard mast,
which is too flexible.

Editorial Comments
This looks like a very light but very workmanlike and rugged boat.

T h e Main Foils
These are set at an angle of dihedral o f 40% as are also the struts. B o t h are
used for lift-off, after which the main load must be taken by the foils. Each
foil has an aluminium tube bonded to the upper end o f its struts. This slides
onto a wooden plug at the end of the main beam, thus transferring the f o i l
lift forces to the beam. A r o d led obliquely from near the bow t o the inner
strut takes the foil drag forces and maintains the set angle o f attack.

Philip Hansford's forward foil

The S t e r n Foils
These are strong-looking and ingenious area-reducing foils which steer the
boat on inverted rudder pintles. I n my o w n models of this configuration,
I used inverted T foils aft and found they worked well. I t would be interesting
to see how they would work at full size.
239

Pniiip Hansford's stern foil (steers)

240

CHAPTER X I X
Letters f r o m : Dave Keiper t o John M o r w o o d

P.O. Box 71, Sausallto, California, 94965

July 23, 1969
Dear John,
The enclosed photograph shows the present state o f WILLIWA W. Changes
from last year: (1) larger pontoons, (2) a masthead float, (3) a protective
coating on the A l u m i n i u m foils. I n this photograph, WILLIWAW
is doing
20 knots with five people aboard, plus a couple o f hundred pounds o f water
and food. I've flown the craft w i t h as many as seven, and as few as t w o .

241

aboard. The wind required for flying (about 12 knots) appears to be fairly
independent of load. W i t h a heavy load of people, I increase the lift coefficients on the bow and stern foils and place the people on the windward
deck. W i t h two persons aboard, in the cockpit, the craft handles well w i t h
reduced bow and stern angles of attack.
A few days ago, we raced a reputedly fast 30 ft trimaran across San
Francisco Bay and back. The wind was blowing Force 4 on the beam. They
were almost lost to view astern after a short time. We met them again when
we were half way back, when they were only about halfway across the Bay.
Last month, we met Eric Tabarly's 65 ft PEN DUICK IV trimaran on the
Bay.
Unfortunately, I had set my foils for a light load, but a whole raft
of people showed up to go sailing w i t h me at the last moment. I was unable
to get total lift-off i n the winds we had. A t one point, when the w i n d picked
up to Force 5, we managed to hold even w i t h PEN DUICK IV, doing about
16 knots.
A couple of months ago, a friend and I cruised up the coast to Drake's Bay.
Winds were mostly light. The best speeds were i n close-reaching to beam
winds. D o w n w i n d , the boat seemed to self-steer, probably because o f the
tremendous directional stability of the foils. The boat was extremely comfortable at sea. When we came back inside the Golden Gate again, we were
struck by Force 7 gusts of wind. The first struck while we were moving about
8 knots with sheets quite close-hauled. The craft began making 20" o f
leeway, churning the water white, but without heeling. When I turned further
off the wind, the craft lifted its nose high and t o o k off like a jet aircraft.
We accelerated to about 25 knots inside a couple of boat lengths.
The 31 ft long WILLIWAW
is about as fast as the average conventional
yacht in light airs w i t h its foils set, but begins passing them all in about
8 knots of wind.
DAVE.

August 5, 1969.
Dear John,
I did a "capsize" test by heaving the mast down, using 4 men w i t h a 2 : 1
mechanical advantage on the line. The masthead float was slightly less than
halfway in the water at rest. I t required about a 75 lb lift to get the boat
back upright. Since it would be impossible to lift the masthead in a rough
sea without a dinghy, I will figure on lashing the main boom against the rather
sturdy rudder gudgeons, and having two crew members climb out on it to
lever the craft up.
On the Mark II design, I can expect to get the boat to be fully self-righting
but I will still use a masthead float to guard against a dynamic situation in
which the craft could get thrown upside-down.
DAVE.

August 20, 1969.

Dear John,
Here are a few figures on foil areas,242
which you request. Floating foil area
projected on the water surface is about 18 sq ft. Actual foil area is about

15 per cent greater, because of dihedral. I f you want combined foil and
strut areas, you w i l l have to tack on an additional 50 per cent. The take-off
area, considered with the craft heeling at 8= and the bow lifted T, projected
onto the water surface, is 12 sq ft. To get actual areas, tack on the same
percentage. A t high speed, foil area w i l l decrease as the square o f the speed,
except that all blading within one chord length o f the surface w i l l be rather
ineffective. M y hft coefficients decrease with speed because the bow comes
back down to normal t r i m .
Some more geometry may be of interest: Separation between bow and stern
foils is 26 ft. Lateral foil lift is roughly lateral from the sail centre o f effort,
a distance of 9 ft. The lateral foil is 9 ft aft o f the bow foil. I w o u l d caution
anyone from using these dimensions unless they can get an overall foil Hft
to drag ratio of at least 13. W i t h lower lift/drag, all spacings should be
increased. I've noticed that, i f my foils are rough, or I've hooked a lot o f
grass, that WILLIWAW
handles poorly. When everything is right, and the
wind is non-turbulent, she takes off relatively quietly, like a beautiful b i r d .
I n strong turbulent winds, she w i l l labour in taking off, as when y o u t o o k a
ride. Probably, much of the foil vibration results from the non-standard
strut sections.
Since AYRS No. 58 (Chapter X I I ) , I've gone to more buoyant pontoons.
The initial extra stability assists take-off in marginal winds. Essentially, y o u
generate your own w i n d by close-reaching, which then allows you t o
surmount the drag hump just below take-off speed. After take-off, y o u can
head further off the wind and still stay up.
The secret of the success of my fixed 4 foil configuration is that i t separates
the problems of lateral and longitudinal stability. The bow and stern foil
combination handles the problems of sail pitching moment and o f changes i n
water incidence due to wave encounter. The leeward lateral foil opposes the
sail heehng moment and the leeway force. The w i n d w a r d lateral foil is
normally out of the water but, i f the bow foil gets negative incidence, i t
re-enters the water and helps the other foils to prevent the craft from reentering the water at a steep angle. A t high speed, the leeward lateral foil
carries much of the craft weight, while the bow and stern foil combination
acts like a "sensor" to maintain proper angles on the heavily loaded lateral
foU.
DAVE.

October 23, 1969.

Dear John,
I expect to set sail for Hawaii a m o n t h from now. I f I r u n into difficulties
with the foils, I w o u l d head into the Coast. A t this point, I can't say how
ambitious a cruise I w i l l take. I expect to stay out o f areas where gales are
frequent, since this prototype yacht is not suitable for an " U l t i m a t e Test"
or perhaps I ' m not suitable!
DAVE.

243

December 17, 1969.

Dear John,
After a series o f frustrating delays, 1 set sail for Hawaii on December 9th.
The departure date coincided exactly with the arrival o f this winter's first
southerly winds and storms. We had light SW winds and lumpy seas as we
sailed South along the Coast. A r o u n d Half M o o n Bay, about 25 miles South,
the winds started heading us, making our only possible course W N W . N o t
wanting to sail to the Aleutians, that centre o f storms, and getting a weather
forecast o f 3 days o f southerly winds and rain (southerly winds have now
gone on for 8 days), we turned around and headed back. We were now
headed N o r t h , the South winds picked up and 20 foot combers came i n
from the West. As the swells lifted us, we caught enough South wind to get
foilborne, but it died as we descended into the troughs. Amazingly, the boat
held a good downwind course for extended periods o f time without assistance
from the helmsman. We had also had had self-steering u p w i n d earlier on.
A l l in all, the boat was extremely comfortable, at least considering the mean
seas.
1 enclose another photograph, this one taken i n the feeble Fall winds.
WILLIWAW
is doing about 15 knots, and the true wind didn't get over 10
or 12 knots.
DAVE.
L e t t e r f r o m : J o h n M o r w o o d t o Dave K e i p e r

December 23, 1969.

Dear Dave,
What a lovely photograph o f your boat. L o o k i n g back over your letters,
I see that you clearly told me i n your letter o f August 20th that the weathei

WILUWAW

at speed.

Note weather foil is out of the water

244

foil came out of the water when flying. Somehow, 1 had missed this point
but now see the devilish cunning of the matter in that the weather foil does
not produce a force to leeward, which all other sailing hydrofoils have done
to date. Undoubtedly, it is this single feature which must make your configuration the best possible.
It was bad luck about your trip towards H a w a i i but I t h i n k you did right
by coming back.
JOHN.
L e t t e r s f r o m : Dave Keiper

Dear John,
January 5, 1970.
So now you've caught on to my automatic leeway eliminating mechanism,
which has no moving parts.
WILLlWAWs
leeway is usually 5' or less. I
expended great effort in figuring that one out, so that I could go out and be a
lazy sailor. To get the windward foil out o f the water requires an 8 heel
on WILLIWAW.
A n 8 heel only costs 2 per cent in sail efficiency. Can
I now consider you a convert to the "heeled hydrofoil"? F r o m A YRS No.
70, I gather that you are already converted to the "flying h y d r o f o i l " .
Next thing y o u know, I ' l l be trying to convert you to the idea of high
aspect ratio hydrofoils! I've been studying over Edmond Bruce's w o r k
published in A YRS. I don't question his data at a l l , but I haven't noticed
any data for equivalent speeds of 10 knots or more. I t is only above 10 knots
that hfting hydrofoils are a benefit to a sailing craft. Certainly, Edmond
Bruce's data shows that low aspect ratio vertical foils are o p t i m u m as centreboards at low speeds. A t these l o w speeds, a lifting foil is much less efficient
than hull buoyancy, so there is no need to erase a small amount o f heeling
w i t h foils.
The one use for a canted foil at low speed (and it is a very worthwhile one)
is to make the craft stand up to strong gusts o f wind. M y own high aspect
ratio foils "stall o u t " in wind gusts when I ' m only moving at a few knots.
A n aspect ratio 1 : 1 foil laterally would allow the boat to slide sideways in
a gust (rather than "Rotate") even when the water flow makes an angle of
attack of 45 on the foil. To get efficient lift at high speed in choppy waters
requires foils running at a depth o f 2 or more chord lengths below the surface.
I don't think it is just coincidence that the two most successful flying hydrofoils, EXOCETUS
( D o n Nigg) and WILLIWAW,
use fairly short chord,
high aspect ratio blading.
I've encountered no problems with sternway on my hydrofoils. Putting
the boat in irons in a good breeze only results in a couple o f knots o f sternway
just enough for backing the rudder and getting out of it handily. I n
similar situations, NIMBLE
No. I's backwards speed got to 4 or 5 knots,
and I once broke the rudder off this way.
I have just designed a 18 ft pocket cruiser which can be built as a trimaran
w i t h foil stabilizer fins. But, with a set of A l u m i n i u m hydrofoils added
(Price S550) it becomes a flying hydrofoil trimaran. I t w i l l be a solo cruiser,
a weekend cruiser for two, or a family daysailer. Foils will be retractable
for sailing i n light airs. Price o f plans S20 (Available from Dave Keiper,
P.O. Box 71, Sausahto, Cahfornia 94965, U.S.A.).
DAVE.

245

Dear John,
M a y 18, 1970.
I wish I could be at your flying sailing hydrofoil meeting at Burnham on
Crouch this month. Hopefully, I ' l l be on my way to Hawaii about then.
Now that the storm season is over, I've got all kinds of crew members applying.
WILLIWA W has been loaded w i t h food and water supplies all winter long.
Quite a few times, I've been sailing w i t h no crew members on the w i n d w a r d
deck, and the boat has done well. One time, beating to w i n d w a r d slowly,
I got laid over to a 70 heel, but she came back as I eased the sheets. This
was in near gale gusts, some o f the turbulent Spring winds. W i t h the masthead float up top, I don't much worry.
Y o u may hear from me next in Hawaii.
DAVE.

Sausalito, June 17, 1970.

Dear John,
As it turned out, I had a 500 mile "shake-down" cruise i n
WILLIWAW,
instead of a trip to Hawaii. In the first 24 hours, we made 175 miles SSW.
Then we headed East to M o r r o Bay, and tacked back and f o r t h to w i n d w a r d
up the coast, anchoring at Pt. Piedras Blancas, Santa Cruz, and H a l f M o o n
Bay.
Very rough conditions on the first day out led only to a strong desire
for the nearest snug harbour to leeward.
We had a few problems, but not w i t h the hydrofoils. The worst was the
forward ventilator. I t is supposed to let i n some air and keep rain and spray
out.
I never noticed air coming in, and it does keep fine spray out, but it
collected heavy spray. When closed, it dribbled in previously collected
spray. When open, it let it in more quickly. I got a bit seasick, pumping
it out below. The chronometer fell into one o f the puddles and later stopped.
I made the mistake o f not setting the windward lateral foil on the first day,
since we would be on the same tack for four days. This was an unsuccessful
experiment, for on beam reaches in the rough stuff, the w i n d w a r d lateral foil
serves a very useful purpose (1 later found out) in that it hfts up the windward
side when an angry wave comes in to break on the side. N o t having this
foil set, we took a lot o f heavy spray on board, and had a couple of frames
popped out of place by breakers. It was very worthwhile to find out that a
couple of my frames were vulnerable, and that the windward foil does serve
a good purpose.
T H E F I R S T 24 H O U R S . We tacked for a couple o f hours to get out o f
the Golden Gate with light headwinds. We then met W S W winds, which
later picked up in the gusts to 25 to 30 knots, w i t h steep, often confused,
breaking seas. We took the wind on the beam, and later more aft as conditions worsened. We reefed the mainsail at 2 p.m. For 10 hours, we
averaged better than 10 knots. We were flying occasionally at 18 knots to
20 knots across lumpy sea platforms, but wallowed a bit too long i n the
troughs, trying to take ofl". ( I later discovered that my bottom was not
smooth, which, along with the heavy load, would explain take-off difficulties.)
A t dusk, we dropped the mainsail completely, and got the boat self-steering
at reduced speed. Through the night, we checked occasionally for freighter
traffic. A t times, I think it must have been blowing a gale. A b o u t dawn,
246

we were awakened by clattering pots and dishes.

WILLIWAW
was laid
over to an 80 heel by a monstrous wave. 1 hung from my bunk with hands
and feet. She restored herself quickly as we heard the thunder of the wave
breaking . . . We covered as many miles that day as I ever d i d i n
NIMBLE
I, yet on WILLIWAW,
I was carrying much less sail area, and had the boat
self-steering for 12 of those hours. We could have done better w i t h moderate
conditions. Only a huge heavy yacht w o u l d have done better than
WILLIWA W in comfort.
T H E S E C O N D D A Y . Heading East, we saw the j i b leech r i p out, which
we repaired. Some of the foil fastening bolts loosened up but 1 cured the
problem later by installing washers. On the bow foil, some A l u m i n i u m
shear bolts failed from fatigue, and we were treated to the spine-chilling
experience o f having the bow foil forcefully retract while we were doing
20 knots. M y crew member witnessed i t , but I was down below and didn't
realize what had happened, since WILLIWAW
on\y nosed down a few degrees
and re-entered the water like a decorous lady.
A t the moment, I ' m redesigning the foil hardware for easier handUng and
better fastening. O f course, on this prototype, I couldn't spend much time
with such matters, it being most important to test the overall configuration
and basic structures. I ' m very satisfied with my foil configuration, and we
didn't suffer any sort o f cracks i n the welds o f the A l u m i n i u m foils, in spite
of the heayy conditions. Most of the time, we were self-steering, and doing
it without vane gear.
DAVE.

L e t t e r f r o m : John M o r w o o d

June 24, 1970.

Dear Dave,
You certainly had a very interesting cruise, and it is nice to know that
WILLIWA W is so seaworthy.
I do wonder i f the expense and multiplicity of your hydrofoils could be
avoided by some simplification.
John.

Letter from Dave Keiper

Dear John,
July 11, 1970.
I put WILLIWAW
up on the ways July 1, to carry out all the changes
that I decided were advisable from the shakedown cruise data. The most
extensive change is in the pontoons. I ' m building up the buoyancy to a bit
over 2,000 lbs, extending the present pontoons fore, aft and laterally (mostly
aft).
It's taken a bit o f figuring to do i t i n such a way that I don't have to
change my foil fastenings. I've slit the port pontoon i n a vertical plane fore
and aft and already have all the new framing i n . The o l d outer side is
remounted 8 in further laterally and 2 i n lower. This way, my deck remains
a single surface.
247

I need more buoyancy so that I don't have to reef down quite so soon.
I t w i l l improve progress tight on the wind (semi-flying), and in strong, gusty
winds. Unfortunately, when we were reefed down for the gusts, we didn't
have enough power to fly during the lulls. M y o l d pontoons were adequate
for moderate steady winds, with 1,200 lbs of buoyancy. (When you saw the
boat, I had only 600 lbs buoyancy).
I enclose a gull's eye view of WILLIWA W (before changes). I don't think
you saw the boat with all its foils retracted. A pair of struts go into the
water to form rudder blades when the stern foil is retracted, for light w i n d
sailing.

WILUWAW

with all foils retracted

248

To answer your questions of June 24. Definitely 4 foil units are needed,
so there is no simplification possible there. O f course, the foils take care
of rudder and centreboard action, so no centreboard t r u n k will detract from
the accommodation, and the amateur wouldn't need to build centreboard
and rudder. There are numerous reasons for the metal hydrofoils, which
unfortunately are not for amateur construction. A m o n g these are strength,
high aspect ratio (relatively speaking), ballasting effect and impact resistance.
The blading extrusion used on WILLIWA W has only moderate yield strength,
but with higher strength A l u m i n i u m on later craft, it is possible to cut down
on the number of struts (reducing cutting and welding to one half) and get
higher lift to drag ratios.
I could design a good semi-hydrofoil (semi-flying) trimaran that w o u l d
have foils suitable for amateur construction. It would be very wide, and
have fairly low aspect ratio foils growing out of the pontoon bottoms at a
45 dihedral. These lateral foils would be lateral to the centre o f eff'ort of
the sails and ahead o f the centre o f gravity of the craft. Angle o f attack
would give C L = 0-3 at zero leeway. A t 5 o f leeway, the leeward foil would
have C L ^ 0-6 and the windward foil C L -= 0 0 . There won't be any ventilation problem i f the leeward pontoon keeps its b o t t o m in the water. The
rudder would be oversize and would have a small fin down to set for a low
C . L I t could all be done with plywood and fibreglass construction.
Of course, I think that it is much more fun to lift out completely, and think
that it is well worth the trouble (expense).
DAVE.

249

CHAPTER X X
THE

FORTY-KNOT

SAILBOAT

by Bernard S m i t h

W r i t t e n 1970

Book Review by John A . H e y i n g .

This book is not only highly informative on the subject, but beautifully
bound. I t belongs on every A Y R S member's bookshelf. I t is full o f
nautical history before i t gets down to the point i n issue, the " A e r o h y d r o f o i l " ,
a flying foil borne craft, of a pattern not described by the A Y R S i n f u l l .
Some months ago, I met a German friend. He t o o k me to a near-by lake
about two or three hundred feet i n diameter and set loose his 6 ft model
of the "Bernard S m i t h " type Aerohydrofoil. A h h o u g h I had read Smith's
book with a little scepticism, I lost every ounce o f scepticism when I saw
the true Aerohydrofoil literally leap upon the bare tips o f its three foils,
trying to take off.
No one could possibly r u n on foot and catch up w i t h i t . I t is almost
unbelievable that a boat i n water can do what this machine can do. I t
nearly frightens me to t h i n k o f what a large man-carrying sized version
would sail hke; and how dangerous it could be i f all the control factors were
not fully understood beforehand.
M y friend then took me to his home and, as his lovely wife poured German
beer, he proceeded to show me other fantastic models o f foil type craft that
nobody else has ever dreamed of, to my knowledge.
T H E F O R T Y K N O T S A I L B O A T describes Bernard Smith's disappointments and trials with various configurations. I t wasn't u n t i l he began to
borrow from the Proa and use Asymmetry that his success began to unfold.
He then independently developed or used a "Bruce f o i l " to weather as an
anti-capsize device. A l l steering is done by an overhead " A i r rudder".
The size of the foils are dictated by the rule that any two o f the three foils,
which are buoyant must be able to support the entire craft. Three foils,
therefore, give ample support. The tapering o f the foils f r o m their thick,
above water sections to their underwater tips is such that the drag
from their thick sections above is lost as the boat rises upon the thinner
sections, causing less and less drag, and increased speed. I have seen this
work, so there is no doubt i n my mind, no matter how many mathematicians
may argue to the contrary.
Ed.Unfortunately,
Bernard Smith's full sized version failed to perform i n
the same way as his models, probably due t o :
1 Increased wetted surface o f full sized buoyant foils.
2 Drag of thick foil sections, preventing "take-off".
3 Lower "scale" windspeeds.
4 The fact that drive varies with the S Q U A R E o f the cosine o f angle o f
slope o f the sails.
5 Solid sails were not used on the full sized version but, i f they had been,
there would have been an extra inefficiency.
250

There is, o f course, nothing essentially wrong w i t h Bernard Smith's A e r o hydrofoil concept. As so many o f the A Y R S members have shown, a long,
light, narrow hull to windward, provided w i t h a "Bruce f o i l " and two angled
hydrofoils to leeward surmounted w i t h an orthodox sail or better a semielhptical "squaresail" could be produced which w o u l d function perfectly
well. M y own opinion is that Dave Keiper achieves asymmetry much more
elegantly but at a cost in weight.
L e t t e r f r o m : S. W a y n e W e l l s
2895, N . Sterling PI., Altadena. Calif., 91001
Dear John,
M y conception of a hydrofoil sailboat is not of a boat to which hydrofoils
are attached but hydrofoils to which floatation is attached. I n other words,
I would propose a craft which could decently sail one home in the lightest
air, but would never win a race in, say, a 5 knot breeze.
F r o m my experience with some 25 models, my greatest fear in a high speed
sailboat is of pitchpoling. 1 am i n favour o f surface-penetrating foils which
gradually run out of area as they lift, which has proved successful in my
models.

3V Canard ModelS. Wayne Wells

I agree with the 12 : 1 thickness to chord ratio, although, with suitable

materials, I would go even thinner on the final surfaces which are in the water.
Also, the triangular plan form must be best to maintain aspect ratio.
Each hydrofoil should be twisted along its length so that the upper portion
has more angle of attack than the lower part. Assuming enough w i n d power,
the foils will produce a great deal o f lift at l o w speeds due to the upper, high
incidence, surfaces being in the water, gradually yielding to a cleaner foil at
higher speeds. This same twist will also lift the bow i f i t should happen to
pitch too far.
252

3V CANARDS. Wayne Wells

253

Anotner S. Wayne Wells model

There must be more positive incidence on the forward foil(s) than the aft
foil(s). The aft foil will then have a negative angle of attack before the bow
foil(s) does.
From my models, I ' m now becoming rather settled on the iceboat (Canard)
configuration or its reverse. W i t h a single forward foil, I prefer to mount
the sail as far aft as possible to help decrease the tendency to drive the bow
under.
I n my latest boats, I am using the well tried sail and centreboard because
I think it is too much to ask foils to lift the boat and resist leeway at the same
time. The foils can then be very nearly horizontal, except at the surface.
S. Wayne Wells.

Letterfrom: W . Morton

61, Mead Road, Chandler's Ford, Nr. Eastleigh, Hants.

Dear D r . M o r w o o d ,
I am interested in hydrofoils and have found a great deal of useful material
in the A Y R S publications. As your knowledge on the subject is extensive,
I wonder i f I may ask your opinion on an idea of mine.
I think you will agree that for such a craft to be o f any practical use some
form of positive control over the lifting force is required. The only two
solutions 1 have seen to this problem are the Hook system and that used
on the Boeing boat. The latter would appear to be little more than a floating
computer and is therefore somewhat impractical on the grounds o f expense.
The H o o k system has the advantage of mechanical simplicity but the idea
of two feelers "sticking out i n f r o n t " fills me w i t h horror.
A possible alternative solution would be to use a fixed foil and vary the
lift by what I would call dynamic fluid control. I don't k n o w i f this is the
254

accepted jargon but what I mean by this is to alter the lift by forcing a jet
of water through a slot situated i n the lower side of the foil and close to the
trailing edge Fig. 1 should make this clearer. The jet acts i n the same way
as the flap on the trailing edge of an aerofoil and has i n fact been used to
control a guided missile. As w i t h the conventional flap a high degree o f
amplification is achieved; that is the lift force generated is far i n excess o f
the force required to move the flap or i n this case the pressure required to
produce the jet. A l t h o u g h a pump could be used to produce the pressure,
a more interesting solution, and one that can be appfied to a sailing hydrofoil,
would be to generate it by the ram effect caused by the forward m o t i o n o f the
boat i n a submerged orifice.

I f two such orifices are incorporated into the strut connecting the foil to
the hull as shown in Fig. 2, the depth of the foil w o u l d be automatically
adjusted. This is because i f both orifices are below the surface the resulting
pressure i n the jet is a maximum, as is the lift force. This causes the foil
to rise u n t i l the top orifice becomes uncovered and the pressure is reduced.
By cunning adjustment of the angle of incidence of the foil it should be
possible to produce sufficient lifting force to balance the weight o f the boat
with only one orifice submerged.
Should the foil rise nearer the surface the
lower orifice becomes exposed, the jet pressure and hence the lift force falls,
and the foil subsides again. Thus the depth of the foil is optimised such
255

that the water surface is positioned between the two orifices. Obviously a
simple check valve would have to be incorporated in the upper orifice to
prevent the water from taking the easy way out when it is uncovered.
I t seems to me that a number of variations can be wrung on this theme.
W.

THE RUSSIAN HYDROFOILS

by John Morwood

MORTON.

1970

Some years ago, there were allegedly some 1,000 hydrofoil motor boats o f all
sizes on the Russian rivers, many o f them very large passenger-carrying boats.
The larger craft, I have been told, keep their relationship to the surface

06u(uu

eud

.lodKU.

TeopeTiiHecKUu
pi CM.

He

'

I,z

a.
0/1
,W(I

256

\S

HocoSoe KpbiJio

A
mo

120
B-B
80

Riao

through the fact that the hft faUs off at about a chord i n depth. Stability i n
roll is achieved by modest dihedral, the foils being fully immersed.
The diagrams show hydrofoils for a 4 meter runabout and are obviously
meant for amateur construction. The main lift comes from a horizontal f o i l
placed transversely of ogival section and thickness to chord ratio of 7 to 120.
StabiHty comes from angled foils set at an angle o f dihedral of 30 w h i c h
pierce the water surface. These have a small trailing edge flap presumably
to give instant response to an upset in roll. The struts are symmetrical foils
of 8 to 80 thickness chord ratio.
The stern foil is placed just ahead o f the outboard and has a 7 m m x
110 m m section. The length appears to be 1 meter.
The drawings seem quite adequate for the foils to be built. A l l dimensions
appear to be in millimeters.
Owing to the design, too much power should not be used. Otherwise,
the main lifting foil will come too near the surface.
257

CHAPTER X X I
HYDROFOIL STABILIZED
COQUI** 1969
by H e n r y A . Morss, Jr.

YACHTS

6, Ballast Lane, Marblehead, Mass., 01945, U.S.A.

LOA
LWL
Beam

24 ft
19 ft 4 in
14 ft

Rig
Sloop
Sail Area
235 sq ft
Est. weight
(sailing, crew of two) 1,600 lbs

Designer: Robert L. Taber

Builder: Warren Products, Inc., Warren, Rhode Island, U.S.A.

AYRS publication No. 70 reported the description and performance of the

COQUI as measured in the summer o f 1968 and in preceding years.
Qualitatively, the behaviour of the boat fell far short of what one might
desire. Sailing to windward was always an effort, presumably because she
carried a substantial lee helm (even with the small forward board added to
the regular one) and rather high leeway angle. Clearly, board area was too
small and too far aft.
For the 1969 season, this was all changed.
Design
After much thought, the decision was made to mount 45 -canted boards on
the two outer hulls. The decision proved to be much easier to make than to
carry out. The shape and construction of the outer hulls did not permit a
slot or box at 45. There was worry about getting adequate strength with a
fixed, cantilever structure.
Finally, a compromise was adopted. The boards were fastened to the
bottoms of the outer hulls by improvised piano-type hinges of fibreglass w i t h

a.

b.

c.

FIG. I.
258

d.

metal "pins". Thie angle of the boards thus became adjustable. Each board
was controlled by two bars of streamlined section which came through holes
in the deck (see Fig. I d ) . Bolts could be moved to different holes in the
bars above the deck to achieve the desired setting, including fully "raised".
The area of each board was nearly 13 sq ft (see Fig. I c ) , about double the
combined area of the two boards used in previous years (see Figs, l a and Ic).
A fair comparison of sloping board to vertical one is best made by noting
the area of the sloping board as projected on the vertical plane. Thus for
one of these boards at 45 we should compare
1
1
X area or
x 13 = 9
V 2
V 2
to the area of the two previous vertical boards, 6-5.
This choice gave an increase of area of a t h i r d or so when just one of the
boards was used and to nearly three times the o l d area when both boards
were used.
The hinges and especially the bars introduced significant extra resistance.
Thus, we could not look for much speed. The result i n this respect was
somewhat worse than originally seemed likely, partly because hinges and bars
seemed to have a great affinity for weed. M u c h of the time clumps o f weed
were being dragged along.
It had to be expected also that this extra resistance would increase the
leeway angle over what it would have been for the equivalent structure w i t h
"fair" connections at the hulls, no bars, and no weed.
Behaviour

The COQUI was a different boat. She was close-winded, sailed to windward
nicely, tacked with assurancea real pleasure to handle.
This qualitative observation in itself is looked on as being highly significant.
Many trimaran sailors (far too many, indeed!) have boats which don't sail to
windward decently at all, which carry lee helm, and which are not easy to sail.
Here is the proof that there is no need for such performance.
This author assumes that the point lies in adequate board area located at
the right place, fore and aft, rather than in the fact that these boards were
"canted". Very likely that assumption w i l l be checked next summer.
During sailing, it was usually hard to see that there was any effect f r o m the
slope of the boards. The impression was that the boat stood up to increasing
wind somewhat better. That is what was expected, the reason for chooisng
the sloping boards. But the amount o f improvement in this respect did not
seem large. Obviously these boards are not far enough out f r o m the centreline to do much toward offsetting the hceUng effect, (see page 123).
These boards were attached well forward of the position of the main board
in the original design of the boat. The estimated position of the centre of
lateral resistance of these new boards was just about as far forward as the
centre of effort of the rig. The boat sailed with rudder very nearly amidships
and with pressure on the rudder which tended to put the bow into the w i n d .
259

Perhaps this can be described as a slight weather helm.

As expected, the COQUI's speed was reduced somewhat by the parasitic
resistance of bars, hinges, and weed. This effect seemed more pronounced
as the breeze picked up in strength.

Measured

performance

The instruments previously described {A YRS 70) were put to w o r k to get

some quantitative data on the performance. Since real performance was not,
and was not expected to be, particularly good, the major effort was devoted
to comparisons made possible by the fact that the angle o f the boards could
be adjusted, rather than to getting full polar curves at various wind speeds.
Even this modest programme was not completed satisfactorily. The
proper combination of smooth water, steady wind, reasonable freedom from
instrumental troubles, and suitable crew were not realized as many times as
would have been wished. Nonetheless, lots o f readings were taken on
several days. F r o m these, the following conclusions seem warranted:
1 Compared to the results obtained with the use of both boards at 45%
when only the starboard board was used,
a on starboard tack, windward ability was significantly improved and
leeway angle was unchanged;
b on port tack, windward ability was only slightly improved, leeway angle
was a degree or more greater (increasing more at higher heading), and
the boat would not head so high;
c on both tacks, balance was changed only slightly.
2 O n one day of trials, the starboard board, used alone, at 35 below the
horizontal was compared to the same in the usual 45 position. The
windward ability was about the same. The boat did not behave as well.
Steering was especially difficult on the starboard tack. The breeze was too
light on this day to permit any appraisal of the stabilizing effect of the board
at that relatively high position.

Why?
The better performance with one board was probably due primarily to the
lower wetted surface and parasitic resistance.
Perhaps it is appropriate to
conclude that the area o f one board was enough, or nearly so.
The better performance on starboard tack when only the starboard board
was used seemed to contradict expectation. The sloping board produced a
force with a vertical component. When the board is to leeward, the vertical
component has the effect o f reducing the displacement o f the boat (and vice
versa). W i t h reduced displacement reduced drag and increased speed may
be expected. In this case, this should have occurred on port tack, not
starboard.
Another reason to expect the opposite to what was observed was that on
port tack the working foil (under the starboard hull) was completely immersed
while on starboard it was "surface-piercing". The fully immersed foil w o u l d
be expected to be more efficient than the surface-piercing one. (Possibly
little such effect should be anticipated w i t h a foil o f such low aspect ratio).
260

Can the better performance on starboard tack be explained by the angular

position of the board? On starboard tack, w i t h better performance, the board
was farther from the horizontal (45 plus angle of heel). O n port tack, w i t h
poorer performance, it was nearer the horizontal (45 minus angle o f heel).
There is a hint in the previous section of poorer performance when the board
was deliberately set closer to the horizontal (35).
Balance was nearly as good on both tacks w i t h one board as it was w i t h
twoanother surprise. A t least this is consistent with E d m o n d Bruce's
reports (partly oral) that problems o f achieving reasonable balance on both
tacks i n a boat of the non-heeling type are less w i t h a foil o f low aspect ratio
than they are with one of high aspect ratio.
Instrumental problems
a Inconsistent data. I n earlier years a wide scattering o f data points was
reported. The same occurred again.
As data accumulated, this problem became increasingly bothersome.
Observations made within a single day tended to be more consistent than
those o f several days.
As the only thing I could think to do about this, I moved the w i n d sensors
from masthead to the height of the centre of effort o f the r i g , i n order to
reduce errors due to variable w i n d shear (speed changing w i t h height).

F I Q .

Nuisance as it was, this was done w i t h a demountable mast at the bow

sloping out from the headstay to assure that the instruments would be i n
air unaffected by the r i g , or nearly so.
b Leeway Gauge. A vane at the bow continues to be preferred. The
problem is to get steady readings when the water is not perfectly smooth.
The situation was improved by moving the pivot farther out beyond the
bow and extending the a r m (see Fig. 2). W i t h a long a r m above water
and only the vane itself immersed, the drag of the unit was reduced.
261

c W i n d Vane. This author continues to be impressed that a very sensitive

and precise wind vane is needed. This has been achieved, down to apparent
wind speeds of 5 Icnots and perhaps slightly less, w i t h a small, nicely-made,
wire-wound potentiometer and a relatively large vane on a long arm.
The problem of locating the zero (fore and aft centre line) is not inconsiderable, especially when the vane is taken down at the end of each day's
sail and set up again for the next one. The safest procedure is to make
complete performance measurements at several values of apparent wind
angle on both tacks and plot the reduced data carefully to find the midpoint.

O v e r a l l conclusions
1 Adequate area and proper position o f underwater profile can make an
enormous difference in the behaviour of a boat. Unfortunately most t r i marans are deficient in both respects.
2 The configuration of boards under the two outer hulls sloping in 45 , as
suggested by Edmond Bruce, has some advantages in sailing but is mechanically very difficult to manage.
M y present thought is that the gains are
not great enough to make this arrangement attractive. On COQUI the
sloping boards are not far enough out to the side.
3 When the boat is sailed with just one of the canted boards, slightly better
performance would be expected with the board to leeward. In these tests,
the behaviour was opposite to the prediction. (Most of these tests were
made in relatively light winds. Thus the magnitude of the effect should
have been small. Perhaps i f tests had been made in stronger winds the
prediction would have been borne out.)
4 A l l in all, this has been a thoroughly worthwhile experiment.

THE

10 S Q U A R E M E T R E O P E N C A N O E

by Bruce E. C l a r k

1970

I IS, McGavock Pike, Nashville, Tenn., 37214, U.S.A.

I have been experimenting with hydrofoils since 1964, and reports have
appeared in A Y R S Journals on my earlier models o f stabilizing hydrofoils.
Due, perhaps, to sailing my first model hydrofoil-stabilized canoe in the clear
shallow water of the Florida Keys, with ugly looking coral heads (looking
shallower than they really were) menacing anything projecting to any depth,
I devoted considerable thought and study to the problem o f making hydrofoils less vulnerable to damage when they ground or strike an obstruction.
1 finally hit on the ridiculously simple idea of "hydrofoil-leeboards". A
patent search did not turn up any prior use of this idea (though a basic
"toed i n " style hydrofoil patent was found, dated 1921!) so I have a patent
pending on this idea.
Hydrofoil-leeboards are just ordinary Iceboards that are spread apart and
at 40 or 45' dihedral. A few refinements are added, or course, such as a
proper hydrofoil section, a supporting bracket faired into the foil blade, and
a hydrofoil section on the outer end of the supporting a r m or crossbeam.
262

Bruce Clark hydrofoil stabilizer

The first thorough trial of the hydrofoil-leeboards was on a 13 ft x 39 i n

canoe using 60 sq ft of sail on a 20 ft mast. Performance was quite decent,
but it was obvious that the canoe was too short and tubby, the sail area too
small. A n 18 ft x 36 in canoe was therefore obtained, a prototype r i g was
designed and built to more fully exploit the hydrofoil-leeboards. The result
is the 10 Square Meter (107 sq ft) OPEN CANOE, which has amazed everyone
who has seen it i n action when it is at all windy. N o t because it is fast,
which is only to be expected with that much sail on an 18 ft 80 l b boat, but
because of its ability to take strong gusts without a capsize (yet!) even when
a number of other small boats were capsizing. However, the foils have about
5 sq ft o f effective lifting area in a knockdown, which w o u l d generate about
70 lb of righting force at 5 mph, 280 lb at 10 mph, with 5 ft o f leverage on
the centreline of the boat. Meanwhile, the skipper w i l l be hiking out on the
weather foil supporting arm, so it is not really too surprising that the canoe
263

Hydrofoil retraction

is easy to keep rightside up, as tlie half dozen or so who have sailed it so far
will all testify.
The sail is a lateen, loose-footed and un-battened like a genoa j i b , and has
a "luff-pocket" which slips over the yard; the halliard attaches through a
"button hole" like opening. This turned out to be a very convenient way
to mount a lateen sail, being less trouble than clasps, track or luff groove.
Performance of the OPEN CANOE has been most gratifying, as the prototype has outsailed most the conventional boats it has been near, up to those
costing 3 or more times what the OPEN CANOE could be made to sell for
(about S550, which is what "board boats" sell for in the U.S.). The present
canoe, a Sawyer SAFARI {\% ft x 36 i n , 80 l b , and flat on the bottom) does
not have nearly as good lines as the same manufacturers CRUISER
model
(17 ft 9 in > 33 in, 61 lb, with moderate dead-rise) and it is felt that the
CRUISER
will prove to be about the best boat possible for this class. The
Sawyer Canoe Co. (Oscoda, Mich., 48750, U.S.A.) are planning to produce
these rigs by the spring o f 1970. Complete plans and instruction are available
from me for S600 in the U.S., Canada or Mexico, S8 00 elsewhere; there is
an S8-00 royalty due upon completion of a rig. 1 also sell plans and instructions for S8 00 for making a cedar (or redwood) strip-fibreglass
CRUISER
canoe similar to the Sawyer CRUISER,
which is moulded fibreglass construction.
A 10 Square Meter OPEN CANOE class association is planned, when
there are enough o f these boats to justify it. Proposed restrictions w o u l d be:
hull, similar to those for U.S. Cruising class single bladed paddling canoe
raceslength not to exceed 18 f t ; hull essentially symmetrical end to end,
except square sterns permitted; width at least 31J i n at a point 4 in above
the keel. A forward spray deck not over 6 ft long to be permitted. Rig to
conform to plans, an unstayed lateen, with a l u m i n i u m tubing spars. Variations
in width, angle and location o f hydrofoil-leeboards to be permitted.
264

Bruce Clark stabilizers

Letter f r o m : Peter Westerberg

Kungsholms, Hamnpl. Z. Stockholme

Dear John,
I have met with problems when building my hydrofoil and therefore wanted
to inform my hydrofoil-brothers about these problems so that they could
avoid making the same mistakes.
On the other hand, 1 was not too keen to tell about the performance o f the
hydrofoil as this was rather poor. I t goes slower than a SHARK catamaran
on a l l courses but a broad reach i n moderate w i n d strength.
I t can fly, but since I have not fitted the front foil yet I have to sit i n the
stern so that the hydrofoils get enough angle of attack. The hull is then
lifted out of the water partly and the major part o f the weight is supported
by the hydrofoils. The balance o f the boat is not very good then and it feels
like making little jumps all the time.
265

I have been out " h a l f flying" a couple o f times and last time one o f the
foils broke loose when she was rather high on her toes.
Since my experiences are so negative depending upon the boat not being
ready, I thought the best thing to do was to theoreticise a little i n order to be
spared from all details and excuse the bad performance o f the boat w i t h
circumstantial reasoning.
U n t i l I can report better results, I felt it my duty to give some information
in exchange for all the things I have read in the A YRS.

161

CHAPTER X X I I
THE FOILER

August 1970

by Gerald Holtom, 5 Hillside Street, Hythe, Kent.

For 2 years now, I have been doing experiments, trying different hydrofoil
stabilizers on a 30 in hull as a design study for a boat which I intend to build
for myself.

The full size concept is of an unsinkable, non-heelihg, self-righting from the

upside down position, fast, family sailing, cruising yacht. A l l these features,
without exception, have been achieved i n the model. As the result is quite
different from the ballasted keel yacht, the catamaran, the trimaran and the
Proa, a new name is needed for this type o f boat. I therefore propose the
name FOILER
for this absolutely new type of yacht.
The dimensions of the full sized yacht, as scaled up f r o m the model are as
follows:
Sail area
275 sq ft
31 ft 6 in
LOA
Mainsail
175 sq ft
29 ft 0 i n
LWL
Foresail
100 sq ft
Beam ( W L )
7 ft 0 i n
Centre of effort
11 ft 8 i n
Draught
8 in
(above L W L )
M a x i m u m beam with foils in position
21 ft 0 in
Weight
5184 lbs
The hull hues of the model are similar to those o f the Uffa F o x 18 ft
JO ELY BO AT and I chose this hull for the good reason that I possess just
such a hull built o f light alloy, the weight o f which, when fully rigged and
provisioned for cruising w i l l be less than 2,000 lbs. N o t e that the model,
when scaled up is very much heavier than the prospective boat so that i t
would be unlikely as a displacement yacht to exceed a speed o f 2 knots (7
knots at full size).

The photograph and diagrams show the configuration. Various

were tried as follows:
1 Isoceles triangle, 4J i n at the top, 6 f i n i n span. Ogival section.
to chord ratio 1 to 12. This worked but the fols kicked up a
of "fuss".
2 Isoceles triangle similar to N o . 1 but thickness chord o f 1 to
"fuss".
269

hydrofoils
Thickness
good deal
24.

Less

3 90 triangle with right angle at the top and aft, 7 | in along the top. 3J i n
in span, a 1/16 in thicl<. metal foil. This worked but, owing to the move
forward of the centre of area on heeling, the model was not self steering
without a vane gear.
4 Equilateral triangle of 6 in sides, thickness to chord ratio 1 to 24. This
again worked and it worked equally well when the lower point was cut off.
5 A semi-circular foil, of 1\n in diameter, thickness to chord ratio 1 to 24.
The progression of these foils will be noted from high to low aspect ratio,
the final shape closely approximating to a I : 1 aspect ratio, when sailing.
The area of each was approximately 1 2 i sq i n for the 275 sq in of sail area
or a ratio of 1 : 22. The thinner foils seem to work better than thicker ones.
Various angles of " t o e - i n " and dihedral were tried. The final conclusions
were that no " t o e - i n " should be used and that the best dihedral angle was
45. The amazing thing was that all the foils tried worked, no matter how
they were set (within reason), the difference between them merely being one
of the speed achieved. Self steering was achieved with all without any
vane gear, with the exception of the right angle triangle foil. The reason for
this self steering is obscure but it is noted that Dave Keiper also achieves
self steering with his boat.
Balancing o u t
This is the term we use to imply the relationship o f the line o f action of the
foil force and the centre of effort of the sail. A " T o i l e r " is "balanced o u t "
if the foil line of action passes through the centre of effort. I t is "underbalanced-out" i f the line passes below the centre o f effort and "over-balancedout" i f it passes above i t .
A l l my models were "under-balanced-out" and all have been capsized in
very strong scale winds, though this is surprisingly rare. This feature, which
was produced by guess, is believed to be necessary to immerse the lee foil
with a hull which hps some stability. A t full scale, the sails could be reefed
and the fully "balanced-out" condition achieved when capsize would be
impossible.
Imnnersion of t h e lee f o i l
At first, trials were made with the tips o f both foils immersed and leeway
angles were large. When, however, the foils were raised so that only the
lee foil was immersed, the leeway angle became negligible, close hauled.
The weather foil is now always kept free of the water.
The lee foil can be immersed (1) by under-balancing out", (2) by having
little or no stability in the main hull, (3) by using water or other ballast to
heel the boat or (4) by having a cross beam which can be rocked in relation
to the hull.
Capsizing
Owing to the gusty nature of the w i n d in ponds as well as scale effect, the
model was often hit by hurricane scale winds when moving slowly. A l l the
270

models have been capsized thus. However, as a rule, the model bears the
blow, picks up speed and sails on. The puff heels the boat, almost immersing
the lee foil completely but it then picks up speed and shoots ahead, the foil
becoming less immersed as it does so.
Fore and aft position of t h e foils
This is fairly critical but not unduly so. I t was found by trial and error to
be approximately that where the centre o f area of the foils is directly athwartships o f the centre of area of the sails or shghtly aft o f this. M y h u l l would
luff when heeled.
Good windward performance with self steering was achieved using only the
foresail simply by moving the foils forward. Similarly, by moving the foils
aft, the model would sail well with only the mainsail.
Foil struts
These are aligned with the water flow so as to present the m i n i m u m of
turbulence when the foils are totally immersed.
H a n d l i n g qualities
As stated, only the lee foil is used when sailing, the windward foil being out
of the water. Close hauled, the model heeled to about 10' and there it stays
with about f of the lee foil immersed. A t 20 of heel, the lee foil is entirely
immersed and the speed increases to over 3 knots (about 10 knots, full scale).
Last Easter (1970), the model was sailed in a gravel pit i n wind conditions
which were too strong for dinghy racing. Waves were about 6 in high from
crest to trough. The sail area was reduced to 25 sq in and it was felt necessary
at the time to keep both foils immersed for stability though this might not
have been essential. The model sailed 200 yards on a straight course apparently unaffected directionally by the waves w i t h both wind and sea a little
forward of the beam, on an even keel and at about 2J knots.
Principles of f o i l e r design
1 High and low aspect ratio foils both work. N o difference in the speed
obtained has been noticed.
2 Low aspect ratio foils reduce overall beam. They also reduce the draught
at rest to that of the main hull, allowing stable boats to be built o f only a
few inches of draught.
3 It may be preferable to have a main hull with some buoyant stability. The
foils can then be set higher or lower or be tilted at w i l l .
4 Full "balancing o u t " is probably best for a model but some" under-balancing
out" is acceptable both for models and at full scale, more so w i t h the latter.
5 W i t h a hull with some stability, the cross arm may be rocked or the boat
heeled with water ballast. A less stable hull may, however, be used.
6 "Under-balancing" may give too much foil area in strong w i n d ; "overbalancing may give too little foil area.
The design r e q u i r e m e n t s
My wish, as stated at the beginning of this article was for an unsinkable,
non-heeling, self-righting from the upside down position, fast, family sailing
271

cruising yacht. A l l these have been met and 1 have achieved self steering
without gears, as a bonus.
The model is unballasted and therefore unsinkable. Ordinary heeling is
not more than 10, though 20 can occur in gusts o f hurricane strength.
The model has achieved speeds o f 4 knots, which represent 14 knots at full
scale and, though this scaling is not strictly valid because of the frequency
of very strong winds, the hull displacement lessens at speed which should be
an advantage. Accommodation should be good in a boat 31 ft 6 in long x
7 ft of beam, especially w i t h our "high coach r o o f " design which is the shape
of the sail foot and contributes to driving force. The shallow draught makes
it an ideal cruising yacht, able to take the ground in the shallowest of waters.
The only thing left out o f this is the ability to right itself from the upside d o w n
position.
Self r i g h t i n g
I believe that any yacht, i f placed upside down should right itself by its
distribution o f weight and buoyancy. This can be done by surprisingly little
attention to the centre o f gravity and the shape o f the topsides and deck.
Our "high coach r o o f " contributed here by adding buoyancy high up to the
deck.
However, my models have the property of dynamically righting themselves
as follows. When sailing in wind strong enough to overwhelm them in their
"under-balanced o u t " state, they can capsize in a strong gust. The mast
enters the water and the craft is soon upside down. But the heave o f the
waves soon causes the foil which is then to windward to rise from the water,
the wind catches it and the boat slowly rights itself and sails on. Given
enough wind, the model can cross a whole pond, capsizing itself, rolling its
mast underneath it and coming up again, several times.
T h e o u t l o o k f o r foilers
The basic advantage of the Foiler is that it makes possible an entirely new
conception of yacht design and yachting. This basic approach to yacht
design appears to me to have been the axis around which the thought and
experiment of A Y R S Members have turned full circle, in the past 15 years,
via multihulls to the present. This new way o f thinking offers greater scope
for design development than any other type o f yacht. I t is astonishing to
me that, after AYRS
Publications Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 i n 1955, one has not
been able to purchase such a yacht off the peg, nor can one even buy a scale
model.
H u m a n nature being what i t is, Foiler sailors w i l l be certain to carry more
sail area than they should for safety. They w i l l be flattened, pitchpoled and
capsized just as all other craft are subjected to extreme conditions. I t follows
that a Foiler should be designed to have all the virtues o f my models. The
only thing which we have not yet solved is a method o f retraction o f the
cross arms for moorings but this is a problem which should not be insuperable.
Design problems are engendered in the mind o f the skipper who equates
safety, comfort and windward performance w i t h keels and ballast. The habit
o f carrying a "millstone" under one's boat dies hard. " W h y can't I fix
272

stabilizers to my Folkboat", 1 was asked. Y o u could, of course, but they

would be of no benefit unless you removed the keel. It is easier to convert
yachts which are designed with keels as separate appendages, bolted to the
hull. M u c h can be learned by fixing foils, removing keel and ballast and
saifing with half the canvas.
The replacement of centreboards by foils on dinghies is also a good way to
learn the wrinkles of Foiler design and handling. Present gymnastic dinghy
enthusiasts will find ample scope for their talents by racing foil-stabilized
dinghies in weather too heavy for the present centreplate trapeze artists.
Conclusion
1 suggest that the Foiler is the logical first step towards flying hydrofoil
sailing. I also think that it is more likely to promote adventurous sailing
than the traditional, slow, combersome, expensive and uncomfortable " o l d
man's keel yacht", which various exceptionally adventurous o l d men and
some young ones have popularized in recent times.
The lightweight, stable, buoyant monohull, known as "The Foiler" can
be designed to survive pitchpoling, to be self-righting and of greater practicability than the life raft. The Foiler's structural strength in relation to
weight would be greater than that of a catamaran or trimaran and it can be
fitted with extra foils for "flight".
It is better to be held steady by the winds than to have one's keel rocked
by the waves. The Foiler is kindly to the flow o f air across her sails and I ,
for my part, prefer a little yacht which responds with so much life to wind
and sea without fuss or bother.
274

AUTOMATIC INCIDENCE CONTROL OF H Y D R O FOIL S T A B I L I Z E R S F O R S A I L I N G C R A F T

by N o r m a n Riggs

13, Russell Road, London, N.I3

The Servo-fin and Servo-strut are two proposed hydrofoil stabilizer systems.
These two designs are the result o f the writer's attempt to evolve a safe,
efficient and practical method of automatically stabilizing a monohulled
sailing craft against the heeling moment of the sails.
PART I T H E S E R V O - F I N SYSTEM
The illustration shows the basic configuration of this type o f stabilizer. Each
stabilizer of a pair, consists of two main areas.
The main foil, connected to the hull by a suitable lateral axle, at or ahead
of the centre of pressure.

StRvo
'Poll.

LEEWrtY

P o r t

--ivt.

A.Nt;UEor

ATTCK.

^ - r S . L i S E. R ( N Q -. T O U C A W r . )

The servo-foil, rigidly attached to the main foil, set well behind the pivot
point (rather like an aeroplane's tailplane). This foil having an anhedral
angle.
Leeway results in a hydrodynamic force, with a component perpendicular
to the main foil axis, being produced by the anhedralled servo foil.
The
leeward servo foil drops and the windward servo foil rises, the leeward main
foil giving positive lift and the windward main foil giving negative lift.
275

The sensitivity of this type o f stabilizer, is governed, primarily, by the

choice of anhedral angle. The angle o f attack o f a balanced main foil is
equal to the tangent o f the component of leeway, acting parallel to the main
foil axis. This is true for small angles.
e.g. with the main foil balanced, and horizontal, when the servo fin anhedral
is 45, the angle of attack of the main foil will be equal to the leeway angle.
Where the main foil is balanced, there is no angle o f attack on the servo fin,
thus losses are minimal. It may be desirable in practice to make the lift
proportional to leeway, which implies, in this case, unbalance o f the main foil.
When the main foil is unbalanced, care must be taken to avoid excessive
loss of efficiency and sensitivity. The servo foil should be kept small relative
to the main foil and the ratio o f the distances between centres o f pressure and
the stabilizer axle, high. The main foil may be given dihedral as required.
One alternative to pivoting foils might be to have servo foils operating flaps
attached to fixed main foils.
In its simplest form, this stabilizer could possibly be an almost balanced
tapering fin, with a pronounced sweepback. The sweepback providing the
leverage necessary for servo action. The servo foil in this case, being the
fin tip, bent down to provide the necessary anhedral angle. Where small
fins are employed to "stiffen u p " an otherwise conventional monohulled
yacht, the fact that these fins do not w o r k when going astern may not be a
serious defect.

PART I I T H E

SERVO-STRUT

STABILIZER

SYSTEM

Fig. 1 shows the essential features o f a port-side stabilizer. The entire foil
assembly rotates freely in a bearing mounted on the hull above the water line.
The axis o f rotation running down the leading edge of an unbalanced strut
cum servo-foil and through the centre of pressure o f the practically balanced
main lifting foil. The servo foil has anhedral while the lifting foil has dihedral,
both having symmertical cross sections. The angle between the two foil
surfaces is equal to the sum o f the anhedral and dihedral angles, being less
than 90.
The action of the stabilizer is two-fold. The dihedral o f the main foil
results in lift being produced in the presence o f leeway. A d d i t i o n a l lift is
produced since leeway turns the unbalanced servo-strut, which, having
anhedral, further increases the angle of attack o f the main foil.
A l l stabilizing lift is produced by the leeward stabilizer. The w i n d w a r d
stabilizer being normally clear o f the water (Fig. 2). Negative lift to windward does not seem to be highly desirable, espacially as there is a likelihood
of the foil coming out of the water or causing disturbance when near the
surface. On the other hand, working with only a leeward stabilizer offers
positive advantages which will become apparent.
Apart from lift, the leeward stabilizer generates a w i n d w a r d force. Assuming the lateral resistance of the hull to be comparatively smaU, this
windward force has three important functions:
a counteraction of leeway,
b relation of stabilizing lift to side force, making it independent o f craft
velocity.
276

S E R V O Vo

II./

c ensures a constant running depth o f the main foil, w i t h respect to the hull,
which acts as a surface reference.
When running, stabilizers will not be necessary and may be retracted. I n
any case i f there is no leewyy, the main foil will have no angle o f attack.
Since the main foil is balanced, the high aspect ratio servo strut w i l l align
always with the flow, causing little disturbance of the water surface and
having a low value of drag.
Servo strut action reduces the roll damping action o f this stabilizer, depending on the effective anhedral angle. This may in fact be o f some
advantage in so far as sudden and possibly destructive changes in foil loading
are avoided. Variations in foil lift, due to pitching movements, are likewise
reduced. This is definitely advantageous since changes in lift due to pitching
will induce rolling.
F I G . 3 .

HEEL."

The curves of Fig. 3 compare the ideal performances o f a leeward servo

strut stabilizer and a fixed stabilizer o f similar dimensions, for a constant
small leeway angle. The anhedral angle of the servo strut and dihedral
angle of the main foil are approximately 30 and 38 respectively, while the
fixed foil has a dihedral of 45 . These angles were chosen because, assuming
constant leeway, the lateral resistance of both types of stabilizer is nearly
the same and both are producing maximum lift when not heeleo. This was
felt to give the fairest possible comparison.
As the hydrofoil stabilized craft heels, lateral resistance is reduced and
increasing leeway causes the lift to rise to a value greater than it was initially.
This ensures recovery of the original attitude and stability of foil running
depth.Fig. 4 shows how lift increases with increasing leeway for the servo
strut and fixed stabilizers of our example, for constant side force.
Note that the comparative performance curves take no account of the
lateral resistance of the hull but arc otherwise sufficiently accurate for a fair
comparison. The superior performance of the servo strut stabilizer is
clearly illustrated, as are the shortcomings of the fixed stabilizer.
The choice of anhedral and dihedral angles is influenced by several diff'erent
factors. However, of over-riding importance is the effect o f the choice on
the operation of the foils when the craft moves astern. As the craft begins
to move astern, the foils will rotate through 180 . The anhedral angle of
course remains the same but there will be a considerable change i n the angle
of the main foil.
Consider now our example where the anhedral angle is 30 and the dihedral
angle 38 . When going astern, the anhedral angle remains unchanged at
30 but the dihedral angle o f the main foil is now 82. This 82 of dihedral
should be sufficiently low to ensure that a line, perpendicular to the surface
of the main foil, passes through, or slightly above, the centre of lateral
resistance of the hull. Satisfying this condition, the stabilizer of our example
although rendered largely ineffective is completely S A F E . Generally,
provided that twice the anhedral angle plus the dihedral angle is greater than
90, the main foils will always have a dihedral angle, rather than an anhedral
angle, when going astern.
Summary
1 Fully automatic stabilizing action at all speeds and points o f sailing.
2 Potential performance at least as great i f not greater than alternative
systems.
3 Mechanically simple and reliable, with no hinges or joints below the water
line.
4 Used as suggested, could easily be retracted, removed or replaced.
5 The craft, although unstabilized, may otherwise go safely astern.

279

CHAPTER X X I I I
THE

OVERALL

CONCLUSIONS

by John Morwood

AUGUST 1970

The conclusions of this book are a little difficult to see and anything said
here may be proved wrong by future developments. The main contentions
at the moment lie between high and l o w aspect ratio and whether or not to
" f l y " for best speed. I can only do my best to pick trends from a conflicting
mass o f evidence, and give my opinions.
1 Large " F o i l e r s " are better than small ones.
2 The greatest all round speeds are likely to be got from a long, lean, hydrofoilstabilized boat. 1 believe that the foils should have an aspect ratio o f 1.4:1
in the form o f a triangle twice as long at the top as in the span and curved
with the concavity outside (Bruce)a thin foil.
3 A " F u l l y ballanced-out" foiler is far too beamy. Reduction of beam can
be got from (a) under-balancing, (b) main hull stability, (c) floats above
the foils and (d) low aspect ratio foils and sails.
4 Flying hydrofoils are the best fun and suitable for the smaller boats. They
are likely to do the best top speeds in the course of time and may be capable
of 40 to 45 knots.
5 Dave Keiper has produced the best configuration of hydrofoil "flyer" to
date because no foil acts to leeward. Essentially, he has added fore and
aft foils to a hydrofoil stabilized trimaran, with floats large enough to
reduce the beam to a reasonable size. The fore and aft foils lift the weather
f o i l out of the water.
Hydrofoil experimenting
One must agree with David Chinery and others that one must have a boat
which sails well in light winds, as a displacement boat. This necessitates a
Foiler type of hydrofoil-stabilization and this configuration should be developed first with stern steering. Only when this stage has been accomplished
should extra foils be used for flying and, o f course, these must be retractable.
Indeed, it is very desirable for the main, side foils to be retractable, as well,
and members are urged to w o r k out means to achieve this.
A final t h o u g h t
The lift to drag ratio o f a single catamaran hull is better than hydrofoils u p
to a speed o f 4 i times the square root o f the waterline length. A 50 ft foiler
will therefore do up to a speed of 31 knots before needing to fly for extra
speed.
L e t t e r f r o m : K e n B e r k e l e y , 70, Ross St., G l e b e , N . S . W . A u s t r a l i a .

Dear John,

September 15, 1970.

I built a C-class Cat., w i t h four H o o k hydrofoils and a wing mast, which,

with some modifications to the angle, we managed to get flying at about
12 mph o f wind, but unfortunately before we could do full trials on her,
she was wrecked in a gale, on the moorings.
For the brief time I had her, I was convinced that she w o u l d not be practical
280

in a seaway, as the moment she came up on the foils, the heeling moment
lifted the two weather foils out o f the water, (and it was travelling at some
30 knots on the leeward foils, so this was very nerve-racking), and as the
rear foil, which had a small skeg on, was also the rudder, we had some trouble
in alternating direction, and getting the boat to descend.
I am now planning to build a lightweight 50 ft Cat., on which we hope to
place two stabilizing foils, and 1 will keep you posted on progress.
KEN.
L e t t e r f r o m Dave Keiper, H a w a i a n

Islands

Dear John,

September 29, 1970.

We had a 16 day passage i n WILLIWA

W (Sept. 4-Sept. 20) from Sausalito
to Kahului Harbour on the island o f M a u i , the shortest distance between the
two being 2,040 miles. The daily direct distance average thus is 127-2 per day.
Overall, it was the easiest passage I've ever had, though we had pretty
rough weather for the first day out o f San Francisco. The hydrofoils contributed significantly to it being an easy passage, assisting in maintaining
control in heavy weather, contributing to self steering (we self-steered almost
all the way), contributing to comfort (the motion was more like that o f
gliding than the usual roll, pitch and yaw).
The foils contributed to speed the first few days o f the voyage where we
had consistent strong and moderate winds. After that, we had variable
winds, a day or two of calm and a week o f very weak Trade Winds. The
last few days, we had light to moderate Trade Winds, strong during rain
squalls. When the wind died on us, we pulled up the foils but the chop was
so bad, 1 almost got thrown off the deck a couple o f times. We re-set the
foils for comfort, even though we lost speed that way. When the seas
flattened, we retracted the foils again.
At dusk on the first day, we sighted heavy floating debris and so cut the
sail area way down the first night. On the second night, we struck something
solid with the windward (starboard) lateral foil. Next morning, we found
the main struts buckled so that it had very little lift. Later, we straightened
it out with a hammer, restoring full lift.
For quartering and downwind sailing in light and gentle winds, we usually
had the bow and lateral foils retracted and the stern foil set, but adjusted
for zero lift.
WILLIWAW
self-steered perfectly this way, even with sails
wing and wing. W i t h all foils set, she self-steered in stronger winds, usually
for a few hours at a time, maintaining course reasonably even when she
started "hydrofoil surfing".
To have made a record passage, we would have needed the moderate beam
winds (N.E.) with well developed waves which occur during part of the
summer. Potentially, 1 think WILLIWA
W could make it in 8 or 9 days.
M y next design could cut a couple o f days off that.
More important than the speed potential is the potential for comfort,
control and self-steering. The fantastic light air performance of the t r i maran is preserved by retracting the foils, but in the moderate and heavy
stuff, the foils get r i d o f the pounding, tunnel interference, quick motion and
bro.iching of the trimaran.
DAVE.
281

EPILOGUE
LOA
27 ft
Displacement
I J tons (approx.)
LWL
24 ft
Sail area
216 sq ft
Sailing beam
26 ft
Headroom
5 ft 6 i n
Beam (foils retracted)
6 ft
Designer: David C h i n e r y ,
The Cop, Buckland, Betchworth, Surrey, England.
David Chinery, having designed MANTIS,
his successful flying hydrofoil
which we saw at Burnham-on-Crouch and a second flying hydrofoil which
is now being built, has produced the design shown here. It makes a fitting
epilogue to this book.
David has no hesitation in attributing the sources o f his design. A t least,
he sets out the main sources as they have impressed h i m but a reference to
the foregoing pages will show other influences, some direct, others as oblique
sources. David's list is as follows:
1 Greer Ellis, for his writings on the Ice Yacht rigs.
2 Edmond Bruce, for publishing his bible on foils, and showing us how to
harness the energy of the water dynamically to stabilize sailing craft.
3 Rodney Garrett, for the development of the floats of SULU
and its retracting system.
4 Gerald H o l t o m , whose models convinced us that unballasted craft with
side foils are extremely fast and, it seems, can survive almost any condition
of wind and yet N O T capsize.
5 Don Nigg, "The Lone Pioneer" who told the world about front foil steering.
6 Arthur Piver, because he demonstrated that unballasted boats built like
aeroplanes are light, fast and strong.
7 Dave Keiper for the " F l y i n g " configuration.
8 A n d , of course, the A Y R S , for forcing the concept o f foilsencouraging
people to produce ideas and bringing these people together (physically
where possible) to communicate and exchange their knowledge.
Hull
Built of PVC foam and Fibreglass sandwich (Kelsall method).
Rodney Garrett's SULU float bow to go through waves, with a Garrett
retractable foil which can align to the water flow.
Large window(s) for sailing the boat in the dry (Gerald H o l t o m ) .
Cabin top is the shape of the sail foot (John Morwood)this is not drawn
in the sectional plan.
Skeg and rudder for sailing the boat as a " F o i l e r " . A retractable stern f o i l
for flying.
Side Foils
45 dihedral, "fully balanced o u t " (Edmond Bruce). L o w aspect r a t i o
(Bruce). Curved lower edge ( H o l t o m ) .
Full retraction to the side of the boat, bringing the foil vertical. M e t h o d
devised by David Chinery, resembling pulling in the foil with the arms, the
elbows going out.
Pantographing foil cross arms. As shown by Gerald H o l t o m and Dave
Keiper, the boat should be self-steering without gears. Fore and aft adjustment of the foil's position will give the course to be steered.
282

283

Sail
This is an E Class Ice Yacht sail (Greer Ellis), with the boom eddy abolished.
A n d y Anderson (Andersons Aerosails) tells us that H o l t Allen make a planklike extrusion for catamarans' masts and this might be suitable for the mast.
I t would o f course be allowed to bow w i t h the concavity to windward (Gen.
Jack Parham).
Designer's C o m m e n t s
A t the moment, I feel quite satisfied with the design, although it w i l l obviously
be capable of change and development.
Regarding foil aspect ratio, I have a very open mind because, quite simply,
I do not know which is better, high or low. I tend to think that deep foils
(high A R ) are excellent for lifting, whilst low aspect ratio is better for stabilizing
because the compensating factor is quicker. W i t h the low aspect ratio foil
out to lee and just touching the water when upright, when the boat heels a
degree or two, more area is immersed quickly.
1 know from MANTIS
I experience that, with the rear foil down, i.e.
6 ft X 1 ft under water, the boat didn't heel I in but it was then rather slow,
thus defeating the object of the exercise. It was much better to retract the
foil and "sit the boat upright". This again makes me think that for stabilizing,
an aspect ratio o f 1 : 1 seems right.
Summary
David Chinery has produced a design o f a " F l y i n g foiler", embodying all the
relevant features of hydrofoils, as produced by A Y R S members over the
years. He described it as " l i k e doing a jig-saw puzzle" but the main thing is
that the design "looks r i g h t " to us. Certain things, such as the side foils'
plan shape, aspect ratio and section and the method o f height control while
flying will doubtless undergo some development but there can be little doubt
that, when the first " a l l r o u n d " successful hydrofoil sailer takes to the water,
it will bear a strong resemblance to this design. It is truly a fitting finish
to what we think is a really remarkable book.

THE

CURRAGH

(A method for modern amateur hydrofoil boatbuilding)

by John Morwood

LOA
25 ft
Beam O A
4 ft 6 in
Weight
140 1b
Cost (1970)
75
Since at least 1,000 B.C., Curraghs have been made in the Birtish Isles.
Julius Caesar had some made while warring in Spain in 49 B . C . to cross a
river, having previously seen them on the south coast of England in his
campaigns there. The curragh o f the Ancient Britons was probably made
from hazel withies covered w i t h hides from oxen or horses and Hornell states
that its form is modelled upon ancient plank built boats.
Curraghs are still being made on the West Coast of Ireland and this summer
I was lucky enough to meet John G o o d w i n and see the completed hull o f a
modern curragh i n his building shed i n the Magharees, Castlegregory, Co.
Kerry.
284

Construction
The curragh is made from 11 in lathes, about ] in thick stretched fore and
aft over some 43 bent ribs, o f about the same size. Where the lathes and
ribs overlap, a single clenched nail holds them together. The lathes are close
together (about i in apart) near the 4 in plank i i n thick which is in the
middle of the boat and could be called the keelson but separate to a gap o f
about 2 in near the lower gunwale.
There are two gunwales one above the other and separated about 6 i i n
by round rods about U in in diameter. Each gunwale is from 21 in to 3 i n
wide by 2 in in depth. The ribs' ends pass through rectangular holes in the
lower gunwale cut somewhat obliquely.
When the shape is complete, the curragh is covered by canvas coated with
boiled tar without any pitch.
Mast and Sails
A l l Kerry curraghs have a sail. The mast is 10-11 ft long and a lugsail is
set on a 9 ft yard. Leeboards are carried but, as there is no keel whatever,
the curragh cannot beat to windward.
Use
The curragh is an inshore and longshore fishing and rowing boat w i t h sail
for free winds. It can carry a cow or horse (upon a bed of seaweed and
suitably trussed) a load o f potatoes or anything else needed by people within
reason. I t can also be an excellent seaboat i f caught out in the Atlantic.
It has survived when plank built boats have been lost.
The M o d e r n A p p l i c a t i o n
The main advantages o f the curragh method of construction are as follows:
1 It is cheap.
2 It is flexible but strong.
3 Absolute latitude of design is freely available.
4 I f glass cloth and resin are used for the skin, "one off"" fibreglass hulls
become simple.
5 Extreme light weight becomes easily possible.
6 The method lends itself exceptionally well to keel-less round-bilge hulls
such as are desirable for foil-stabilized sailing boats.
Reference
The Curraghs of Ireland Part 3 by James Hornell. Price 3s 6 d . Published
by the Society for Nautical Research, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London, S.E.IO.

285

AMATEUR YACHT RESEARCH SOCIETY

(Founded 1955)
Woodacres, Hythe, Kent.

List of Publications at 5/- (25p) or $1 00 each.

Those starred are at present out of print.
1. Catamarans
*2. Hydrofoils

*30. Tunnel and Tank

*31. Sailing Theory

3. Sail Evolution (Reprint)

*32. Sailboat Testing

4. Outriggers

*33. Sails 1960

34. Ocean Trimarans

Sailing Hull Design

6. Outrigged Craft

35. Catamarans 1960

7. Catamaran Construction

36. Floats, Foil & Fluid Flows

8. Dinghy Design

37. Aerodynamics 1

9. Sails and Aerofoils

38. Catamarans 1961

10. American Catamarans

*39. Trimarans 1961

40. Yacht Research I

11. The Wishbone Rig

41. Yacht Research II

*12. Amateur Research

*42. Catamarans 1962

Self-Steering (see overleaf)

*43. Trimarans 1962

14. Wingsails

44. A.Y.R.S. Yachts

a s . Catamarans Design

45. Basic Research

16. Trimarans and Outriggers

46. Catamarans 1963

*17. Commercial Sail

47. Outriggers 1963

v>/*18. Catamaran Developments

19. Hydrofoil Craft
^ 2 0 . Modern Boatbuilding

48. Yacht Electrics

y 49. Keel Yachts

^ l . Ocean Cruising (Reprint)

50. Catamarans 1964

*22. Catamarans 1958

51. Foil & Float

*23. Outrigger 1958

52. Trimarans 1964

*24. Yacht Wind Tunnels

*53. Solo Cruising

25. Fibreglass

54. Catamarans 1965

*26. Sail Rigs

*55. Trimarans 1965

^/27. Cruising Catamarans

56. Sailing Figures

28. Catamarans 1959

57. Round Britain 1966

*29. Outriggers 1959

58. Practical Hydrofoils

286

Available at 8/-(40p) or 81-50 each.

*59. Multihull Design & Catamarans 1966
60. Multihull Seamanship & Trimarans 1966
61. Sailing Analyses
*62. Hydrofoil Victory
63. Multihull Capsizing
64. Catamarans 1967
65. Trimarans 1968
66. Foils, Ice Yachts & Sails
67. Catamarans 1969
68. Outriggers 1969
Available at 10/- (50p) or $2-00 each.
70. Retirement Yachts and Polars
71. Single-handed Trans-Atlantic Races
72. Catamarans 1970
73. Trimarans 1970
69. Multihull Safety Study 15/-(75p) or $2-00
Bound Book on Self-Steering 23/- (115) or 84-00
Bound Book Single-handed Trans-Atlantic Races 23/- (115) or $4-00
Subscriptions: 2 or SIO-OO per annum for which one gets four publications
and other privileges starting from October each year.
Discussion Meetings are held in London during the Winter and at least
one sailing Meeting takes place. Regular meetings also take place in Los
Angeles and other places.
A.Y.R.S.

Windsocks:

Dinghy size

Si ins.

14/- (70p) or 82-00

Cruiser size

16 ins.

28/- (1-40) or $4-00

16 ins.

15/- (75p) or $2-00

A.Y.R.S.

Burgee:

A.Y.R.S.

Ties:

In black or blue with A.Y.R.S. device 21/- (1-05) or S3-00

A.Y.R.S. Polar Curve Graph:
1/- (5p) or 25 Cents
All prices include Postage by Surface Mail.
287

BUILD YOUR BOAT OF CONCRETE

(Ferro Cement)
A l l materials for t h e hull, d e c k , and keel of
Queenslander t h e 33 ft. 4 i n . c o n c r e t e m o t o r
sailer illustrated o n this page, cost 150 s t e r l i n g
plus 57 for t h e plans, and full size patterns.

SA1L_PL AN

'BOAT BUILDING
W I T H HARTLEY"
N i n e t y eight pages
w i t h 270 photos and
drawings, showing how
plywood and c o n c r e t e
(ferro C e m e n t o ) boats
are built.
15s. s t e r l i n g . U.S.A.
$1.50 post free surface
mail, o r 2 Stirling.
U.S.A. !iS post free a i r mail to a n y w h e r e in
the W o r l d .
A L L H A R T L E Y plans
are c o m p l e t e w i t h
construction drawings,
lists of materials and
F U L L SIZE P A T T E R N S
of t h e s t e m , s t e r n ,
frames etc. Post free
airmail.
TASMAN'
27 ft 3 in. X 9 ft. 0 in.
X 3 ft. 9 i n . c o n c r e t e
m o t o r sailer, plans
and p a t t e r n s :
45 s t e r l i n g -SIOS
U.S.A. A i r m a i l post free
'QUEENSLANDER'
33 ft. 3 in. X 10 ft. 8 in.
X 4 ft. 6 in. c o n c r e t e
m o t o r sailer, plans
and p a t t e r n s 57
sterling S135 U.S.A.
A i r m a i l post free.
S O U T H SEAS37 ft. 8 in. X M ft. 2 i n .
X 4 ft. 6 in. c o n c r e t e
m o t o r sailer, plans and
patterns 69 s t e r l i n g
S I 6 5 U.S.A. A i r m a i l
post free.
TAHITIAN
45 ft. 3 in. X 13 ft. 6 in.
X 5 ft. 9 in. ocean going
ferro cement motor
sailer, plans w i t h
p a t t e r n s 103 s t e r l i n g .
S256 U.S.A.
Airmail
post free.
COASTAL
f e r r o c e m e n t launch
38 ft. 0 in. X 12 ft. 0 in.
X 3 ft. 6 in. plans w i t h
patterns 72 s t e r l i n g
S I 7 I U.S.A.
Airmail
post free.

QUEENSLANDER.
COJNCRETE
LENGTH

( F E R R O CEME^JT) MOTOR

33-3:

SEND FOR YOUR

BEAM

lO-e:

SAILER.
DRAUGHT A - S :

FREE C A T A L O G U E S T O

HARTLEY FULL SIZE BOAT PLANS, Box 30094,

TAKAPUNA NORTH AUCKLAND
NEW ZEALAND
288

QUANTOCK
MARINE ENTERPRISES
HORIZONTAL AXIS MOUNTED WIND
VANE SELF-STEERING GEAR
A s efficient as tfie most expensive . . . T h e
best value on the m a r k e t . . . O c e a n P r o v e d
W I L L FIT A N Y S T E R N
Greater power output on a w i n d c h a n g e
POSITIVE D I R E C T LINE TO T I L L E R
Control on all points of sailing . . .
Finer course setting . . .
No under water parts . . ,
F I T T E D T O Y A C H T S U P T O 20 T O N S
..
SHIPPED TO ANY PART OF THE W O R L D
Further details:

MKII 2 5 d e l i v e r e d i n s t r o n g case

QUANTOCK MARINE
ENTERPRISES,
82 D u r l e i g h R o a d ,
Bridgwater, S o m e r s e t .

Tel: 2043

POLYNESIAN
CATAMARANS
Mr. C . W . Philbrick, an American TEHINI builder, lists some of the
reasons why the Majority of Ocean-Going Catamaran Sailors are
Building Wharram Polynesian Catamaran Designs.
"After wracking my brains for six months trying to design a
better multihull than yours I have come away with great admiration
for the intelligence embodied in the design decisions incorporated
in your boats. I very much like the decisions on: N o T r a n s o m s
no pitchpoling and broaching problems. N o Solid Wingprevents
wind and waves getting hold of the boat and pushing it over. Catamarans versus Trimaranstrimarans must have all the flotation
they can get sideways and diagonally, catamarans have the biggest
floats and they are out there trying to prevent a diagonal capsize,
not digging in and tripping the boat. Deep Vgives sufficient
lateral plane, but is without centre-boards to trip, break, foul
with weeds, and the boat can 'roll with the punches.' Low C e n t r e
of Gravityvery important in pitching and capsizing problems.
H i g h W i n g n o slamming. Bow as high as Sternwind has
less tendency to swing boat one way or other, less chance of getting
pooped. Simple Boatseasy to build, maintain and sail. V e r y
S t r o n g Backbonegives you second chance if hit deadhead,
beach, reefs, etc. Flexible H u l l Joiningreduces local stresses,
easier to transport boat. And a Very New Idea to MeKeep t h e
W e i g h t in t h e Bilgesit will make her easier riding and provide
additional momentum to get her through the win on to the next
tack."
-POLYNESIAN CATAMARAN

DESIGN

PLANS

are available from:

BROMLEY

BOATS,

Southlands Road., B r o m l e y , K e n t , England.

Send 2/6d. (4/- overseas) for illustrated brochure.

James W h a r r a m ' s latest book

T W O GIRLS, T W O C A T A M A R A N S ,
is available from Bromley Boats or any bookseller. Price: 30/-.
Printed in Great Britain by F . J . P A R S O N S L T D . , London, Folkestone and Hastings